Contents Introduction
Digital technology and innovation, often termed as frontier technologies, have significantly influenced and transformed various aspects of human existence, including social, cultural, and economic spheres. Digital technology and innovation play a crucial role in the emergence of digital disruption. Therefore, to overcome this issue, organizations need to design strategies to sustain the achieved value. An ideal method is to ensure a substantial and profound improvement of the operational procedures of organization by using and optimizing digital technologies at the disposal. Transformation comprised all departments in organization, including business processes, the products and services rendered, or methods of communicating with consumers. The comprehensive change consists technical, social and cultural aspects of organizational work, which are supported by the use of digital technology and innovation also known as digital transformation [1].
Digital transformation occurs across all aspects of organizations, including both manufacturing and service sectors. The services sector has experienced a significant transformation with the adoption of digital technologies, altering the way services are delivered. Previously dependent on physical methods, services are increasingly transitioning to digital platforms, manifesting as digital service [2]. This shift was not a change in delivery but an expansion of access, enabling services that were initially restricted to certain service points to be accessed from any location and at any time. The evolution focused on the significance of services as a major aspect of digital transformation, in line with the advancements in technology and digital platforms. The success of digital transformation is measured by its ability to significantly improve the quality of services offered [3]. This process of creating or improving service products to enhance organizational value through the support of information technology, computing, communication, and connectivity is also referred to as digital service transformation [4], [5].
In the service sector, public services are currently experiencing digital transformation to preemptively tackle potential disruption in its provision. The objective of digital service transformation in public sector is to maintain or enhance public value, which is a fundamental objective for agencies in this field. In this context, public value refers to the benefits offered by the government through services, regulations, laws, and various initiatives that contribute to the general welfare of society [6]. It can be categorized into economic, administrative, democratic, and citizen values [4]. The example of enhancement of public value includes broadening the reach and personalization of services through the use of websites, mobile applications, social media, and data analytics. The public can easily access and use information on numerous governmental services, increasing transparency and efficiency while lowering costs.
The commitment to deliver exceptional public services is stated in Law Number 25 of 2009 on Public Services, focusing on the responsibility of the government for effective organization and service provision [7]. To reinforce this commitment, Presidential Regulation No. 95 of 2018 introduced the Electronic-Based Government Systems [8], mandating the adoption of electronic systems to ensure the reliability of public services. This regulation compels public institutions to experience a transformative process in the services offered. Additionally, Presidential Regulation No. 18 of 2020, concerning National Medium-Term Development Plan for 2020 to 2024, identified digital service transformation as one of the three elements in the broader transformative agenda, alongside creating an enabling environment and developing big data capabilities [9].
The government program of bureaucracy reform (also known as reformasi birokrasi) initiative actively integrated digital service transformation as a major component. Minister of State Apparatus Utilization and Bureaucratic Reform Regulation No. 3 of 2023 states that digital service transformation is one of the indicators for assessing the success of bureaucratic reform [10]. The target of bureaucracy reform is the establishment of agile, collaborative, and accountable digital governance. Digital service transformation is introduced to support these through the development of digital public service to improve the quality, speed, excellence, and efficiency through the use of information technology. Reform in public service bureaucracy is expected to minimize the prevalence of mal-administration processes in government service provision. According to the Annual Report of the Indonesian Ombudsman for 2021, public complaints regarding alleged mal-administration in public services include service delays (28.45%), non-compliant procedures (21.77%), and failure to provide services (16.98%) [11].
A well-structured framework serves as a guide to shape transformation activities, providing relevant support for the successful implementation of digital service transformation in public sector [12]. Given the complexity of this process, specifically in the context of diverse public value goals, having framework becomes essential. This framework serves as a valuable instrument in facilitating and supporting transformation activities, contributing to improved efficiency and raise the chances of successful implementation. For optimal results, the team tasked with overseeing the process should strictly adhere to the principles stated in digital service transformation framework. This ensured that related activities were properly guided and directed, thereby leading to the successful execution of transformation, and the realization of expected public value in accordance with the vision, mission, and strategies adopted by organization.
We reviewed several literature sources to examine the progress of research on digital service transformation frameworks in the public sector. This review is presented comprehensively in APPENDIX A. There are certain literature that focused only on the conceptual framework and not specific to public sector [1], [13], [14], [15]. Other suggested adopting frameworks from IT service management such as FitSM [16]. Some literature provided guidance for specific conditions of transformation, such as legacy services [17], [18], digital platformization [19], and the implementation of technology in smart government initiatives [13]. Additionally, other research addressed frameworks at various stages of transformation, covering aspects such as strategy planning and development [20], [21], [22], [23], monitoring progress [24], readiness assessment [25], [26], [27], measuring maturity [28], [29], [30], and identifying components that either support or hinder the success of transformation [31], [32]. Several studies have discussed the use of various frameworks to evaluate the progress of transformation. Examples include interoperability evaluation [33], the use of TOE (Technology, Organization, and Environment) Framework [34], STEP (Social, Technology, Environment, and Policy) framework [27], and TEF (Technology Enactment Frameworks) for evaluation [35], [36].
The framework provided in the literature up to the time of this research have limitations. These include concentrating exclusively on specific activities, processes, or functions. Several frameworks are typically conceptual, adopted from other fields, or not specifically designed for the public sector. Some adopted frameworks can only be utilized as tools for evaluating transformation activities. This literature has a significant gap, lacking a comprehensive and formal reference framework for conducting digital service transformation in public sector. This provides an opportunity for further research. The research question posed in this study is how to develop a comprehensive digital service transformation framework in the public sector, encompassing all essential elements and procedures. This research will rely on existing literature reviews and the current conditions in Indonesian government institutions.
Based on problem formulation and research question, the objective of this research is to propose a comprehensive and formal reference framework that thoroughly covers the stages, methods, resources, and instruments essential for conducting digital service transformation in public sector in Indonesia. The proposed framework will endorse the notion of sustainable development, aligning with the lifecycle of digital service transformation. In order to accomplish this objective, the research will adopt two approaches: a theoretical approach using qualitative meta-synthesis method to develop the framework based on literature review, and an empirical approach involving surveys and interviews to validate the framework. This research is expected to have a significant contribution on the sustainable process of digital service transformation in public institutions, particularly in Indonesia. This research is significant as it offers alternative guidelines for stakeholders in public sector, especially in Indonesia, to implement transformation for improving the quality of public services and maintaining public value amid the ongoing digital disruption.
This research was organized into several parts for clarity. Part II discusses relevant research on digital service transformation and the associated framework. In addition, Parts III and IV focuses on the selected research methodology, and designing framework using the meta-synthesis method, respectively. Part V addresses the empirical investigation conducted to verify framework concept. Furthermore, Part VI was concluded by summarizing the results and acknowledging limitations for future research.
Related Works
A. Digital Service Transformation
Digital service transformation is a complex concept with several definitions in academic literature. It is also referred to as digital servitization, defined as the conversion of manufacturing products into commercial services through digital channels like the internet [37]. Additionally, it is described as organizational transformation, also known as digital service innovation [38]. This transformation is defined as a process driven by the integration of digital service [39] or technology [40]. Another definition focuses on the transition from analog to digital, requiring the digitalization of the entire process to create innovative services, business models, and products aimed to reduce operating expenses, enhance delivery effectiveness, and stimulate revenue expansion [41]. Digital service transformation can also occur in public sector, playing an important role in reshaping service ecosystem and transforming related services in governmental organizations [19]. For the purpose of this research, it is specifically defined as the process of generating or enhancing digital service products in the context of business transformation. The aim is to increase or generate new value through the support of information technology, computing, communication, and connectivity [5].
The implementation of digital service transformation includes several major aspects, with a significant focus on digitalization of business processes. This includes transitioning from manual to digital with greater intelligence, automation, faster response times, less human errors, and an improved overall efficiency. Additionally, a critical element is the strategic use of data and analytics to discern patterns, trends, and user preferences. Through the analysis of user interaction data, institutions tend to gain profound insights, enabling the provision of more customized services, designed in respect to user needs. The convenience of handling data from anywhere and at anytime is another factor to consider, facilitating improved collaborative work and scalability, specifically through the adoption of cloud technology. The users benefit from convenient access to information and transactions through internet platforms or mobile applications. Furthermore, these individuals experienced adequate support characterized by responsiveness and personalization, often facilitated by the use of technologies such as chatbots or virtual assistants.
The critical success factors of digital service transformation are essential components that significantly contribute to the realization of related initiatives, projects, and activities required to achieve the expected added value. These fundamental components should be met consistently in transformation process to guarantee the success. The success factors tend to vary in each organization, depending on the culture and value, as well as the targeted benefits or added value realized from transformation process. It also served as a reference for the development of success indicators during the formulation of transformation strategies and action plans. The following is a collection of success factors required during transformation process [42]:
Institutional and managerial aspects: Leadership commitment, fostering competent teamwork, implementing effective change management, ensuring consistency between business and IT strategies, active leadership participation, establishing competence programs, and skill development initiatives, defining an ideal governance structure, adhering to supportive regulations and policies, promoting transparent communication, and widespread acceptance.
Infrastructure: Data security, the establishment of IT architecture, fostering interoperability, promoting IT and data agility, ensuring the availability of IT artifacts, and institutionalizing culture of innovation in organizational framework.
Workforce: Creativity and innovation capabilities of individuals, IT literacy, instilling values and beliefs, adaptability, and collaboration skills.
Internal/external environment: Budget availability, political stability, community participation, regulatory framework, and the quality of telecommunication services.
B. Public Sector and Value
Public sector refers to activities owned and operated by the government aimed at providing essential public services and enhancing the welfare of citizens [43]. This includes government agencies, public organizations, state-owned enterprises, and institutions that provide essential services such as infrastructure, education, health, and security. Public sector plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth, generating employment opportunities, and ensuring social justice and population welfare. Additionally, it plays a significant role in the economy by regulating and allocating essential resources for the welfare of the society, including the prevention of monopolies by the private sector [44].
Public value broadly refers to the value created by government through various means, including services, regulations, laws, and other actions that contribute to the general welfare of society. It includes assessing the extent to which the fundamental needs of individuals, groups, and the entire community are fulfilled. The government or public sector is responsible for generating public value to meet the diverse societal demands. Furthermore, public value is closely associated with reinforcing public trust in the government, comprising factors such as trust, belief, responsiveness, and accountability. These factors are expected to be achieved through the delivery of high-quality services, building a reputation, providing tangible benefits, and ensuring service adequacy [45]. Measuring public value includes evaluating the success in delivering services to citizens and its actualization for the benefit of the people [46].
In the context of digital service, public value is characterized by the transformative capacity of digital technology to enhance the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of public services. It includes the convenient and expedient access to services, unrestricted by geographical and temporal limitations, as well as transparency and accountability, while also fostering public engagement. The essence of public value in e-government comprised the services itself, comprising desired outcomes and the level of trust citizens have in the government.
In terms of digital service transformation, enhancing public value includes improvements in operational efficiency, cost savings, service quality, equal access, and technological innovation for citizens at large. This transformative process also enhances transparency in the management of public resources, facilitates increased engagement, and the delivery of more responsive services. The resulting public value from digital service transformation can be broadly categorized into four groups, namely economic, administrative, democratic, and societal values [4].
Methodology
Management initiated digital service transformation in response to the incessant disruptive phenomena. A significant aspect of formulating the structure of framework is understanding the diverse range of actions and initiatives. The design process includes observing these phenomena and analyzing how the actions of the management contributed to preserving its values. Research materials are gathered from academic literature that identified these inititatives. A synthesis process, using meta-synthesis, was then applied to the collected literature to extract information on how transformation process was conducted, strategies, and indicators adopted, including the stages taken to achieve transformation success.
Conceptual framework was obtained from meta-synthesis, although further investigations are required to enhance its design. To achieve this, empirical research was conducted through surveys and interviews with experts and practitioners in digital service transformation, specifically in the government sector. A survey containing questions aimed at assessing the conceptual design, was developed. Following the survey, interview sessions were conducted to have in-depth knowledge of the examination process. Empirical research played a crucial role in validating conceptual framework and refining the constituent elements.
A. Theoritical Research With Meta-Synthesis
Tremendous efforts have been dedicated to enhancing the interpretation of qualitative literature using the qualitative aspect of meta-synthesis. Conversely, meta- analysis, which is specifically designed for quantitative research, has an interpretative and hermeneutic objective than deductive intentions. While meta-analysis aims to increase certainty in cause-and-effect conclusions, meta-synthesis focuses on understand and explain phenomena [47]. In terms of generating interpretive translations, basic narratives, or theories, meta-synthesis integrates and compares results or metaphors from various qualitative research [48]. This process produced interpretive synthesis, rather than an aggregate summary of findings. The quantitative meta-analysis method relies on quantitative data and rigorous statistical methods, while meta-synthesis focused on qualitative research without an extensive literature base. In contrast to the quantitative method of meta-analysis, which depends on quantitative data and rigorous statistical methods, meta-synthesis comprised qualitative investigations and a comprehensive process of combining several related reports to generate novel interpretations. For example, in synthesizing business models for hospital healthcare management, two known models can be synthesized to derive a new one [49]. Meta-synthesis can be categorized based on goals and samples into various types, including meta-ethnography, meta-study, qualitative research synthesis, meta-summary, meta-aggregation, realist review, critical interpretive synthesis, and theory-generating [50].
In meta-synthesis framework, meta-ethnography is one of the methods, introduced in the publication titled Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies [51]. Operating in a comprehensive and interpretative synthesis paradigm, it is fitting to generate and explain new theories, conceptual models, or identify research gaps [52]. An interesting feature is that meta-ethnography does not require a large number of investigations and can be conducted with a minimum of three [48]. It plays a unique role among various synthesis methods, being the first developed and the most widely used in health, social science, and education research. A review of literature published between 1980 and 2010 showed that meta-ethnography is a commonly adopted qualitative tool for the synthesis process.
Examples of research using meta-ethnography in IT sector include knowledge management [53], IT personnel management [54], and e-government [48], [55], [56], [57]. According to [48], meta-synthesis was adopted to compare, interpret, translate, and synthesize distinct research frameworks. The meta-ethnography steps proposed by [51] include:
Getting started, identify a research topic for the synthesis process.
Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest. Define relevant studies with research interests and to find literature on scientific databases.
Reviewing selected literature. Read repeatedly and assessing the concept of metaphor.
Determining how the studies are related. Entering jointly study and determine the relationships.
Translating the studies into one another. Translating by comparing the concept or metaphor one another
Synthesizing translation. Compile the entire study.
Expressing the synthesis. This section communicates the synthesized results of the conducted process.
B. Empirical Research With Survey and Interview
The empirical study, conducted through a survey, seeks to validate the design of conceptual framework. The study employs purposive sampling using a snowball approach, targeting 40 respondents to meet the minimum sample size requirement of 30 for exploratory research with large samples (according to the central limit theorem) [58]. The selected participants are professionals involved in the digital service transformation of Indonesian government agencies, typically occupying leadership roles in IT departments or as mid-level functional officials, especially associate IT specialist, serving as the heads of digital service transformation teams.
The survey was conducted by completing an electronic questionnaire accompanied with instructional texts and video tutorials. The questions inquired about the perceived level of significance of each activity within the framework, as determined by the participants. The questions were organized using a five-level Likert scale: very important, important, unsure, not important, and very unimportant. The data gathering occurred in September and October of 2023.
The interview process serves as a further step following the previously conducted survey activity. It offers comprehensive and contextual information, allowing for a direct examination of the viewpoints, attitudes, and experiences of the respondents. In this research, semi-structured interview was applied, guided by responses from previous survey. The aim was to confirm and clarify survey responses, while gathering additional information related to respondents understanding of digital service transformation. The participants are the same as the survey respondents. We prioritize respondents who are willing to participate in interviews and exhibit interesting responses, as shown by the findings of the conducted survey.
Designing the Framework
A. Conceptual Design
Prior to formulating framework, it is crucial to possess a preliminary understanding of the intended content and customary constituents affiliated with the framework. Duffy and Andreasen conducted research on the design coordination framework for managing a design process and stated important aspects in the development. These include decomposition, synthesis, lifecycles, process stages, such as goals or targets, tasks, detailed plans or activities, and resource requirements [59], [60]. Using these aspects as a reference can help identify essential elements or components that should be incorporated into framework design.
The identification of framework components also refers to well-established or mature ones, such as ITIL 4, COBIT 2019, ISO/IEC 20000, or FitSM [16]. We consider these frameworks relevant to follow because they all address digital service management. FitSM framework is referenced and recommended alongside the other three frameworks [16]. FitSM, consists of many components including an overview of vocabularies, requirements, objectives and activities, role model, implementation guide, templates and samples, as well as maturity and capability self-assessment scheme. These elements would serve as the fundamental reference in constructing framework.
Considering the results from the study mentioned earlier, we developed our framework concept by incorporating several architectural components, as illustrated in Figure 1. The determination of these factors primarily relies on the components found in FitSM. The other components are incorporated from various frameworks based on the discussions mentioned in the [16]. The framework concept consists of four primary elements: a lifecycle model, critical success factors, stages/activities, and measurement methods/tools. While there are several additional elements that may potentially be incorporated into this framework, such as an overview of the concept (including its definition, scope, and restrictions), user guides, or templates/samples, we have chosen not to include them at this particular moment. Our attention is solely directed towards these four components, as they are essential aspects that must be considered in a framework. Their presence can illustrate the complete sequence of transformation stages and describe each action to be conducted within each stage. Based on this, we argue that our proposed framework can be conveniently deployed by users.
Because this framework concept will be built based on the cycle and activities of digital service transformation, we determine the levels of its processes/activities. Based on the service management lifecycle idea, digital service transformation will be classified into three levels of processes. Phases/cycles at the first level, stages at the second level, and activities at the third level. The concept might be classified into two distinct levels: cycles and activities. Nevertheless, upon observing a significant number of activities occurring inside a single cycle, we made the decision to establish an additional stage between these two levels in order to facilitate future usage. We adopted the level segmentation performed in the system development methodology by [61]. Hence, it can be inferred that under this framework, the stage/activities component in Figure 1 will be divided into stages and activities, both of which are derived from the lifecycle component.
B. The Processes of Meta-Synthesis
1) Identifying Research Topic
The research topic of this study is the development of a framework for digital service transformation in the public sector in Indonesia, encompassing the lifecycle, stages, activities, and their respective components.
2) Identifying Relevant Literature
The objective of this stage is to identify literature suitable for synthesis, specifically concentrating on stages, flow, phases, workflow, or framework of digital service transformation in public sector. To achieve this, keywords were identified as the basis for searching relevant literature.
The main keyword is digital service transformation, which served as the central focus of the research. In an effort to gain a more comprehensive understanding, the term digital transformation was introduced. This enriches the results and also anticipates the possibility of a limited number of literature sources. In meta-ethnology, there is no specific minimum requirement for the number of literature sources, and the research can proceed with as few as three collected sources [48], [51]. It was assumed that the processes and stages of digital service transformation are in line with digital transformation in general, as it represents a specific type of transformation for digital service products [5].
The second keyword is public sector, as this present research focuses on the process in the field. However, any literature that does not address public sector was intentionally excluded. Even though the main aim is related to achieving public value, transformations that occur tend to differ in terms of processes or treatments. This led to a deliberate distinction between transformations in the private and public sectors.
The third keywords are framework, stage, step, process, and phase, which reflects the intention to focus on literature discussing the various stages of the ongoing transformation. This selection would then serve as the basis for designing a process-oriented framework. When selecting literature search keywords, a specific strategy was adopted. The term digital service transformation was enclosed in quotation marks (“”) to specifically find literature that directly focused on this aspect. Meanwhile, the keyword digital transformation remains unenclosed in quotation marks, allowing for a more inclusive search to capture other similar terminologies, such as digital transformation in service, service transformation, digitally service, or business transformations. This method is consistently applied to other keywords such as framework, sector, stage, step, process, and phase.
Based on the collection of keywords, we can formulate the keyword combinations as follows:
“digital service transformation” AND “public sector” AND “framework”
digital service transformation AND “public sector” AND “framework”
digital transformation AND “public sector” AND “framework”
“digital service transformation” AND “public sector” AND (stage OR step OR process OR phase)
digital service transformation AND “public sector” AND (stage OR step OR process OR phase)
digital transformation AND “public sector” AND (stage OR step OR process OR phase)
Literature search was conducted on the IEEE and Scopus databases from February to April 2023. The search yielded a total of 309 articles, comprising 11 articles from IEEE and 298 articles from Scopus.
Once we acquired the literature collection, we developed certain criteria to assess whether the discovered articles should be included or excluded. The articles were chosen according to the following criteria:
Articles in English. We selected articles written in English and rejected those written in other languages such as German, Russian, or Chinese.
Articles relate to academic publications, preferably in the form of journals. Our study prioritizes journal collections as they offer comprehensive explanations of the transformation.
Articles that specifically address frameworks or the processes/stages of digital service transformation and/or digital transformation in the public sector. Articles that did not specifically address this study issue, or simply covered some aspects of it while discussing other topics, were not accepted.
From the results of the selection, we found that 265 articles were rejected for not matching the criteria. Therefore, we acquired 44 articles which met these criteria for further investigation. Details of the 44 articles can be found in APPENDIX B.
3) Reviewing the Selected Literature
At this step, we are carefully examining the 44 chosen articles in order to discover the primary topics. The primary concepts encompass cycles, stages, processes, activities, and tasks that are regarded as integral components of digital service transformation. In addition, we analyzed supplementary information such as the constituent elements of the method, the methodologies employed, the instruments and techniques utilized, and other criteria employed in the process of transformation.
One example is the review process in article [16], which states that the implementation of a service management framework can facilitate the achievement of public service transformation. The authors suggest various frameworks and conduct a comparison to identify the most suitable 1TSM framework for overseeing the change. Another instance is described in [4], where it is revealed that the continuing digital service transformation in the Danish Government consists of multiple stages, including co-planning, co-design, co-management, co-delivery, and co-assessment.
4) Determining How the Studies are Related
During this process, we determine how each literature will be related. Hence, it is important to determine the specific set of metaphors, phrases, ideas, or key concepts that will be employed for the purpose of comparing the literatures [51]. Nevertheless, the key concepts have already been defined during the initial stage of formulating the framework concept. These key concepts include framework, cycle, process, activity, method, approach, tool, and technique.
Based on the levels of transformation activities (phase/cycle, stage, and activity), we determine how these literatures will be compared and synthesized later. First, we need to synthesize the lifecycle as the first level. Then, we synthesize the stages and activities. Next, we synthesize the components within these activities (such as the methods/techniques used, tools, and documents produced). Next, we analyze the determinants of transformation success. Subsequently, we examine measuring models/tools for assessing transformations, whether it be to gauge the level of maturity or readiness, or to evaluate the attainment of expected public value.
5) Translating the Studies Into One Another
The translation process and synthesis process are both carried out in two stages. The first stage entails the process of translating and synthesizing in order to generate the transformation cycle. After obtaining the result, we utilize it as the key concept in the second stage, which involves translating and synthesizing to generate the stages and activities.
a: The Translation Process for Lifecycle
To initiate the translation process of the lifecycle, one of the journals served as a reference. This was in accordance with the research conducted by [50] and [65], stating that synthesis required references outlined in previous research literature. Meanwhile, the journal selected as the initial reference for synthesis was published by [4]. The rationale behind this selection is, first, it comprehensively explains transformation of public services, such as in the case of the Danish government. Second, it elaborates on the collaborative production process (between the government and the community or enterprise) in carrying out transformation of public services. Lastly, it explains public value to be achieved in this collaborative production, an aspect not found in other collected literature.
To obtain a more generic synthesis aggregation, further exploration of relevant literature was conducted. The aim was to enhance the applicability of information for the lifecycle synthesis, seeking support from interconnected sources. This included conducting a focused literature search related to the same theme as the initial reference, resulting in the identification of seven additional literature pieces [62], [63], [64], [66], [67], [68], [69]. A total of eight literature sources will be translated and synthesized to obtain the lifecycle.
The next step is to identify transformation activity stage described in each literature. For example, in [4], specific activities such as “development of strategy and planning with working group participation for national digital strategy” were carefully coded as (1.1). Similarly, “determining co-financing” was coded as (1.2), and so on. As an illustration of the procedure performed for this phase, TABLE 1 is presented.
The identification findings from the eight aforementioned literature sources suggest that the authors use the terms “service lifecycle”, “service stages”, or “value chain” [62], “public service cycle” [64], “phase of service cycle” [66], or “public policy and management cycle” [67], [68]. The explanation, specifically the research conducted by [64], stated that these stages constitute a service cycle in public sector. Therefore, it can be inferred that the lifecycle of digital service transformation in public sector tend to be guided by the process of providing public services according to service lifecycle.
After identifying and coding the various activity stages, the next step is to group them. Several recurring generic concepts in all literature, commonly referred to as activity groups, were identified. These groups were systematically categorized into eight concepts, namely planning, commissioning, design, management, delivery, assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Each coded activity stage is then assigned to one of these activity groups. Subsequently, these groups were arranged according to the sequence of activity stages, namely planning or commissioning as the first sequence [62], followed by design, management, and delivery [68], and finally assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. While there is no explicit reference for the sequence of the last three stages, it can be inferred from the literature explanations that these stages typically occurred after the first two sequences. The results of this process are displayed in TABLE 2 column (1). Through these grouping and arranging activities, we obtained the rudiments of the lifecycle and its derivative activities as materials for the synthesis process in the next stage.
b: The Translation Process for Stages and Activities
During this process, we translated the concepts present in each literature and linked them with concepts from other literatures. We performed three tasks. First, we identified key concepts in each literature and assigned identity codes. For example, in literature [18], we identified the transformation process and assigned an identity code, such as “organization requirements: business strategy, policy” given the code 16.1, “involvement requirements: the citizen involved, method” with code 16.2, and so on. We did the same for other literatures. An example of coding can be seen in TABLE 3.
During the second step, we merged all of these elements into a cohesive table, where each column was specifically allocated to a certain literary work. The classification is based on the stages of the synthesized lifecycle. Here, activities that are categorized under the Planning phase are collected. The full work is illustrated in TABLE 3.
In the third step, we grouped activities which have similar meanings with key concepts into a single cluster. For example, under the key concept of “establish discussion forums, focus group”, we grouped activities such as “determine the skills needed in the IT department to support DT (6.3)” [70], “stakeholder partnership: build a coalition of working partners representing all stakeholders (8.5)” [24], and “collaborate with the community (20.2)” [71]. An example can be seen in TABLE 5 column (2). From the grouped collection, we proceeded to the synthesis stage.
6) Synthesizing Translation
a: The Synthesis Process for Lifecycle
During the synthesis process, our first step was to simplify or combine similar or closely related activities from each group. For example, the activity “establishing discussion forums, focus groups” is the outcome of combining or simplifying “establishing collaboration forums and business forums for better regulation (1.3)” with “focus group (1c.1)”. Another example is “policy and governance planning” (derived from activities with codes 1b.1, 1e.1, and 1e.2), “determining priority services” (formed from activities 1b.2, 1e.4), “determining procurement and financing” (obtained from activities 1b.3, 1e.5), etc. This process of combining and simplifying does not change the number of activity groups, rather this resulted in the reduction of these activities. This process can be viewed in TABLE 2 column (2).
Secondly, the stage groups and activities are systematically aggregated, combined, and simplified. For example, the “planning” and “commissioning” groups are simplified into “planning”. Although the research conducted by [69] combined these groups into “commissioning”, however, in the present investigation, planning is selected because it is universally understood and has a general meaning [63]. Another example is the “management” and “delivery” groups, which are combined into “delivery” [64], [67]. The “assessment”, “monitoring”, “evaluation”, is condensed into the term “evaluation”. This activity is shown in TABLE 2 column (3)
The third stage of synthesis led to the making of final adjustments and generalizations to each activity within each phase, to enhance readers’ understanding. Furthermore, a meticulous reorganization of the outcomes from the third iteration was executed to establish a genuinely sequential, cohesive, and user-friendly procedure. This activity is illustrated in TABLE 2 column (4). The final outcome of this stage is the lifecycle of transformation, as well as the detailed stages and activities in it, as shown in TABLE 4. These detailed stages and activities serve as key concepts, guiding the specification of details in the subsequent synthesis phase, which includes the incorporation of additional literature obtained from the previous stages.
b: The Synthesis Process for Stages and Activities
The objective of this synthesis process is to provide a detailed account of the stages and activities derived from the lifecycle process reported in the previous sub-section. This step is essential because the initial synthesis process does not cover all the literature obtained. The previous process was aimed at extracting key concepts, which served as the basis for determining the activities and the sequence in each transformation process. The synthesis process was carried out for the respective lifecycle, with each process divided into three activity parts.
In the first step, we continued the process initiated in the “translating the studies” stage. The grouped results in TABLE 5 column (2) is subsequently synthesized, which includes merging and generalizing or simplifying similar activities. For example, the activity “plan a flexible IT organizational structure that can easily adapt (6.6)” and “form a special structure/institution to manage transformation process, which can consist …in specific fields (8.6)” are synthesized into “designing the IT organizational structure to manage transformation”. The outcome of this synthesis is a series of new activities viewed as a development or elaboration of the synthesized lifecycle results, including the example shown in TABLE 5 column (3).
In the second step, the activities are reordered, grouped, and simplified. The reordering process was prompted by the inclusion of new details into the lifecycle activities initially synthesized. The process was due to the presence of activity groups that cannot be categorized into lifecycle activities, such as “top management understands changes in technology status that can affect the service ecosystem they manage (4.1)”. This activity was included in a new group outside the lifecycle activities of the synthesis results. The results of this step are shown in TABLE 6 column (2).
In the third step, the results were then combined and re-grouped into several new activity groups, following two distinct criteria. The first criterion requires grouping these activities based on updated lifecycle synthesis activities. The second criterion requires grouping and introducing activities with new terminology, because these activities have not yet defined in the lifecycle activities.
Furthermore, the language arrangement and structure were simplified to ensure the use of common words in the activities presented, to be properly understood by the readers. This simplification does not mean the omission of relevant information in the activity, but rather transferring that information into the description of the respective activity. For example, “designing the IT organizational structure for managing transformation with membership considerations based on the proportion and skills relevant to transformation activities to be handled” was simplified to “establishing digital service transformation team”. Additional information regarding “…based on the proportion and skills relevant to transformation activities to be handled” will be included as part of the activity description.
The final result of the synthesis process is a detailed breakdown of stages and activities for planning phase of digital service transformation in public sector, an integral component of the constructed framework. Similar synthesis processes were then applied to the subsequent stages of design, delivery, and evaluation, following the same method. The process adopted is slightly different from the one applied in the planning phase.
c: The Synthesis Process for Components in Each Activity
The subsequent stage includes obtaining detailed information for each activity in the established framework, covering descriptions/objectives, methods, requirement documents, output documents/deliverables, actors/roles, responsibilities, and tools, as shown activity of “establishing the digital service transformation team” in Figure 2. Filling in the content for each of these components is accomplished through the synthesis process. Specifically, during the third synthesis stage, the focus is on simplifying the processes of transformation activities. This requires condensing lengthy process details, which are then transferred into the description/objectives component to complete the information in that section. The literature collected also provides additional details that can improve the descriptions of the activity. In cases of incomplete details, a new search is conducted beyond the existing sources, referencing journal collections in Scopus, IEEE, ACM, and other non-journal literature such as white papers, government regulations, SOP, and ISO documents, including technical reports. This extensive search ensures comprehensive content completion for these activity components.
Another example, reported by [24], provided detailed information about various activities, including readiness analysis and assessment, strategy design, action plans, and transformation initiatives. Supplementary insights reported by [25] described components that can be included in digital readiness assessments. Additionally, the research conducted by [23] and [27] stated that analytical methods such as AHP, SWOT, PESTLE, and STEP were used to assess the internal and external readiness conditions of organizations. An example of such an “identifying external and internal organization conditions”, as shown in FIGURE 3.
Another literature example related to the design phase is found in the research carried out by [17] and [18], which provided valuable insights into the methods used to determine organizational needs, commitment and system requirements, project management, design processes, development, and testing. These sources focused on the applicability of details from the System Development Life-cycle (SDLC). Therefore, filling in the components of activities, refers to literature related to SDLC, such as ISO 15288:2015 on processes in the system lifecycle, ISO 24748-1:2018 on system and software lifecycle management, and additional research including [61], [73], and [74].
A comprehensive research on the delivery phase focused on various literature sources, including [16], which used service management to operate and control the delivery activities of new services resulting from transformation This includes incident and service request, problem, configuration, change, and release deployment management. The research conducted by [24] provided detailed information on change management, covering aspects such as resource mobilization, awareness raising, piloting, and feedback provision, as shown in [24]. An example is shown in FIGURE 4.
Various literature, including [30], offer insights into the evaluation phase, presenting methods and procedures for assessing transformation results by measuring the maturity value obtained. Further descriptions regarding the measurement of transformation maturity can be found in research conducted by [75] and [76]. Additionally, the research conducted by [16] focused on evaluation activities, specifically the description of continual service improvement adopted from IT service management.
The next activity requires identifying actors, the roles, and responsibilities in each transformation activity, typically sourced from framework. This process aims to determine activity ownership, assign responsibilities for specific tasks, identify coordinators, and specify individuals who need progress updates. The relevant parties in this process are often referred to as stakeholders.
Several stakeholders actively participated in digital service transformation process in public sector, contributing to directing, supporting, implementing, and accepting transformation. The stakeholders consist of multiple actors, each assigned specific roles and responsibilities in transformation process. These include top management, employees, internal parties forming transformation Team, service users directly used the transformed services, business partners or advocating for service availability, and the broader community, alongside external stakeholders.
Based on the results of literature identification, at least six groups of roles integral to digital service transformation in public sector, where reported namely:
Top Management: This category includes important roles such as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Strategy Officer (CSO), Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), Chief HR Officer (CHRO), Chief Legal Officer (CLO), and other relevant positions.
Transformation Steering Committee: Consisting of either some or all members of top management team.
Transformation Team: Comprising roles such as Chief Digital Officer (CDO), business analyst, enterprise architect, project manager, system analyst, application developer, resource manager, technology support, quality assurance, trainer, and instructional designer.
Service Users: This group includes subject matter experts, employees or internal departments of the agency requiring services, other agencies, the general public, and business or private partners.
Business Partners/Service Availability Supporters: This category includes various actors, such as partners, business collaborators, vendors, third parties, and technology infrastructure providers.
Community/Citizen and Other External Stakeholders: This group includes civil society, citizen, regulators, other government agencies or businesses, and non-profit organizations.
The responsibilities of actors are thereafter aligned with the sequence of stages and activities of the pre-established digital service transition. The mapping process involves the utilisation of the RACI Matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed), which is a widely employed management tool for elucidating and establishing roles and responsibilities in projects, processes, or organisations. It is commonly implemented to prevent confusion and disagreements in a project or process, ensuring a clear comprehension among all team members of their individual roles. This approach improves the level of responsibility, effectiveness, and exchange of information within the team and with the individuals or groups involved. TABLE 7 demonstrates the application of the RACI matrix in the delivery phase.
d: Analyzing Critical Success Factors and Related Activities
A literature review was conducted to identify success factors for the digital transformation process by providing information from various sources. For example, the research conducted by [32] categorized various components influencing transformation, such as digital technology, knowledge management, transformational leadership, open innovation, etc. A similar research conducted by [30] focused on designing a transformation maturity model, by proposing dimensions as measurement parameters. These dimensions, including digital skills, data analytics, technology adoption, and customer awareness, also serve as crucial input for identifying success factors. Additionally, these findings focused on the synthesis, such as using the research conducted by [42], which stated a comprehensive collection of success factors in transformation.
Success factors serve as crucial indicators that requires the attention of transformation practitioners when navigating specific activities requiring the implementation. The careful implementation significantly enhances the possibility of success. For example, during the formation of transformation team and steering committee, it becomes essential to understand how to build a competent team, that requires the active participation of top management, as well as sustain leadership commitment in transformation. To address these needs, critical success factors and the descriptions from the literature were incorporated into each corresponding transformation activity. This integration is exemplified in the establishment of commitment for transformation, as shown in FIGURE 5. The description, method, tools, and outputs, including an additional explanation, were outlined. This additional information focused on the critical success component, particularly, the requisite skills that transformation team must possess. By factoring in these considerations during the team formation process, the possibility of success in the general transformation process is significantly enhanced. The example shows how success factors are integrated into the description of “establishing the digital service transformation team” activity.
Example for addition of success factors to establishing the digital service transformation team.
e: Analyzing Measurement Tools/Models
Measurement tools for transformation needs are generally differentiated based on the specific purposes. There are three components measured according to the framework design in FIGURE 1, namely: maturity assessment, readiness assessment, and public value achievement assessment.
Maturity assessment is used to evaluate the level of accomplishment in organization after transformation process. This measurement helps organizations understand the extent of progress in the transformation journey and detect areas that need improvement or enhancement. several components that can be assessed include service users, and channels, user experience, innovation processes, human resource competencies, work culture, collaboration, communication, information availability, data and data security, digital strategy, and change management, as well as business model and structure. The research conducted by [30] stated examples of methods and frameworks for measuring transformation capabilities and maturity levels. Furthermore, similar research were conducted by [75], [76], [77], and [78].
Identifying organization readiness for transformation aims to understand the extent of its boundaries that can be achieved based on the availability of resources and infrastructure. This measurement was conducted to help organizations evaluate the readiness levels for adopting and implementing digital service transformation. It provides valuable insights into specific areas that require attention and improvement as the measurement navigate the transformative process. The research on measuring organizational transformation readiness conducted by [25], [79], [80], [81], and [82], can be used a reference.
The achievement of digital service transformation can also be measured by comparing the added public value before and after transformation. Public value, in this context, relates to specific components such as the functionality of public services The metrics for assessment include the percentage of public services accessible online, availability of public services, download form, and information search functions. These metrics are measured before and after transformation, and a notable difference in values indicates a successful process for those services. Furthermore, the research conducted by [83] focused on this assessment. TABLE 8 shows several indicators that can be assessed in measuring public value based on the literature from [83].
All measurement tools mentioned are also referred to in the activity components within the framework, namely in the activity “Conducting A Transformation Readiness Assessment” where measurement tools for readiness assessment and public value assessment are used. Another activity is “Assessing Implementation Result Outcomes” where measurement tools for transformation maturity assessment and public value assessment are used. Public value is calculated twice, before and after transformation, to determine the level of achievement resulting from the transformation process as a report for top management. An example of the explanation of the use of these measurement tools is presented in FIGURE 6.
Explanation of the use of measurement tools in assessing implementation result outcome.
7) Expressing the Synthesis
In this stage, we have organized our findings into the framework. The results are explained in detail in the following section.
C. Result and Discussion for Synthesis
Digital service transformation cycle is an ongoing activity, in line with the principle of continuous improvement inherent in transformation. This cycle is structured into four main phases: planning, design, delivery, and evaluation. This cycle consists of four phases, namely planning, design, delivery, and evaluation as shown in FIGURE 7, where each is divided into stages. The planning and design phases have four, and five stages, respectively, while the delivery, and evaluation phases has two stages, each. These stages are further detailed with specific activities, each containing components such as methods, tools, and output documents.
The first group is categorized into Planning phase, which comprise four stages and a total of 14 activities. The details of the stages and activities contained are shown in TABLE 9. The focus of the planning phase is on preparing all essential elements for the subsequent implementation of transformation project. The main activities in this phase include the development of a strategic plan comprising vision, mission, goals, objectives, success indicators, and transformation strategies. Additionally, action plans and work programs are established, serving as foundational elements for the execution of transformation in the subsequent phase.
Design phase, categorized under the second stage in transformation cycle, is focused on the implementation of digital service transformation project according to the strategic, and action plans, including the work programs established during the Planning phase. This crucial phase centers on executing transformation project, which includes technology adoption and installation, service system development, business process digitalization and reengineering, and the design of guidelines for competence improvement activities. With five stages and a total of 14 activities, a detailed breakdown of this phase is shown in TABLE 10.
The delivery phase, categorized under the third stage in transformation cycle focuses on using the results from the project to establish long-term transformation processes. The crucial activity in this phase is the effective management of changes that occur to prevent issues and disruptions during the delivery process. Change management activities include drafting regulations or policies for new products, conducting training, preparing the environment, and fostering collaborations. This phase comprises two stages and a total of eight activities, with a detailed breakdown is shown in TABLE 11.
Evaluation phase categorized under the final stage in transformation cycle, focused on the analysis and assessment of the results of implementing digital service products in the project. The critical activities in this phase include evaluating the delivery process, measuring success indicators, improving public value, enhancing transformation maturity, and analyzing recent transformation developments to provide recommendations for future transformation processes. These are realized as an effort for continuous improvement and service enhancement, which is the core of a transformation process. Evaluation phase consists of two stages and five activities, as shown in TABLE 12.
Digital service transformation process follows the principle of continuous improvement; therefore, it need not be stopped after a single cycle but has to be repeated according to transformation strategy established in the base year. This strategy, set in the base year, is associated with transformation programs that would be progressively implemented in the subsequent years. Based on the synthesis of literature frameworks for digital service transformation, the procedure for carrying out these transformation programs were stated as follows:
The adoption or installation of technology, and improvement of related infrastructure and platformization of the available IT service ecosystem [15], [19], [72].
Automation and digitalization, focusing on the implementation of IT to improve employee efficiency and accelerate the performance of digital service delivery with the support of relevant technology [15], [19], [34].
Rationalization of procedures through digitalization processes, such as streamlining Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and eliminating bottlenecks for more efficient procedures, achieved by integrating digital technology into the workflow of business processes for service delivery [15], [19], [70].
In the context of digital service delivery, business process re-engineering is a radical redesign of business process to achieve significantly cost reduction and optimize IT use [19], [70], [84].
Improvement of data security and privacy during digital service delivery requires the implementation of policies, and adoption of technologies such as encryption, two-factor authentication, blockchain, along with the conduction of regular audits and security training [85].
Collaboration and service integration, focusing on the relevance of collaborative platforms, and teamwork. This includes developing partnerships and fostering integration among government agencies, business partners, and the community [19].
Enhancement of employees competencies, capabilities, and skills in using digital technology and promoting related service innovation [15], [86].
Examples of sustainable improvement in transformation process, are shown in FIGURE 8. During the base year (1st year), the institution established vision, mission, goals, and strategy as guidelines for transformation. Subsequently, action plans are designed for the five-year transformation project, further broken down into annual transformation work programs. According to the work program, in the example, the first-year transformation project focused on the adoption of technology and the installation of IT infrastructure. Digital service transformation cycle takes place from planning to evaluation, with the team following each stage by identifying relevant activities and disregarding those not in line with the strategy.
After the first year had ended, a comprehensive analysis was conducted to assess the current situation and identify necessary changes. This analysis significantly influences the revision of both the action plan and work program. Subsequently, the second-year work program is implemented, for example, building a platform. This sequential progression continues, with the third and fourth-year work programs focusing on the development of service systems, and its support, respectively, while the fifth-year centered on enhancing employee competence and providing training for new skills. In instances, where evaluation results indicate the need for continuous changes are necessary, the team revises the vision, mission, goals, and transformation strategy as part of the next long-term program. Consequently, the developed framework accommodates all these continuous processes, and planning might become a recurring stage in the design, delivery, and evaluation processes, in line with the established strategy and work program.
Empirical Research for the Framework
A. The Processes of Survey and Interviews
The data collecting process resulted in responses from 35 out of the targeted 40 respondents. The participants consisted of three IT unit executives and thirty-two mid-level functional officials who served as heads of information technology unit. The participants hailed from eleven governmental institutions in the Republic of Indonesia, namely the Statistics Indonesia, the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, Regional Communication and Informatics Agencies, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the National Commission on Human Rights, the Constitutional Court, the Indonesian National Defense Forces, the West Java Provincial Government, and the Polytechnic of Statistics.
Based on the results of survey, we have picked respondents who are open to being interviewed and have given intriguing responses. Afterwards, we carried out interviews with eight participants from various government institutions including the Central Bureau of Statistics, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, the West Java Provincial Government, and the Regional Communication and Informatics Agency of Bandung City and Sumedang Regency. Due to the sensitive nature of digital service transformation in the government, direct quotes from the interviews will not include the identities of the respondents.
Once we acquired the survey data, we transformed subjective opinions into numerical values. Our objective is to perform a descriptive analysis in order to obtain the average, lowest, highest, and standard deviation values for each activity variable. The detailed calculation results can be found in APPENDIX C.
B. Result and Discussion for Survey/ Interview
1) Planning Phase
All activities in this phase have high average values (greater than 4) with low variability. This indicates that all activities in the planning phase are considered as important to very important, with minimal difference in their responses. FIGURE 9 displays the mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation value for each activity.
Minimum, maximum, and mean value for perception level of importance on each activity in planning phase.
The three activities with the highest average values are establishing commitment for transformation” (code A-VAR_1-1), “designing digital service transformation strategies” (A-VAR_1-10), and “designing governance models and transformation policies/regulations” (A-VAR_1-11). Meanwhile, the three activities with the lowest average values are “establishing the digital service transformation steering committee” (A-VAR_1-3). This activity is the only one with a minimum value of 2. The subsequent activities are “establishing the digital service transformation team” (A-VAR_1-2) and “conducting a transformation readiness assessment” (A-VAR_1-7).
The interview results validate that establishing commitment for transformation is the most vital undertaking during the process of transformation. This action is crucial to ensure that the next transformation process has comprehensive support and supervision from the leaders.
“Commitment is required, even if it is necessary to print or create a charter, to show every process by team is legal, under the supervision and advice of top management.” (Respondent #4).
However, it is noteworthy that commitment is not always adequately planned or organized. Maintaining the built commitment poses several obstacles. According to several of the respondents we interviewed, commitment is established at the start of the activity but is not maintained consistently in the following stages. One participant noted that there are discrepancies in policies that are not in line with the original dedication. In addition, some respondents argue that certain service unit providers or work teams are reluctant to agree to the shared commitment. One participant proposed that a deficiency in digital literacy results in an absence of comprehension among leaders on their commitment to it.
“Unfortunately, our level of digital transformation literacy is still quite low” (Respondent #6).
The strategy and governance/policy of transformation are important factors that must be emphasized in the preparation for transformation. Respondents assert that the presence of supportive rules and governance, along with the availability of a well-defined strategy and roadmap, will significantly impact the efficiency of the transformation process. Below is a respondent’s perspective on the significance of a transformation plan.
“Strategy is very vital to establish strategic actions and the priority scale of transformation in order for its implementation to be more effective and efficient” (Respondent #4).
We examined the opinions of the respondents regarding the activity establishing a transformation steering committee, which is perceived as unimportant, specifically in relation to activities with low average values. Respondents conveyed that the activity did not progress in accordance with expectations and rather appeared to be a ceremonial gesture. Respondents attributed the deficiency in digital leadership as one of the contributing factors, alongside the inadequate qualifications to effectively carry out responsibilities within the steering committee.
“Often it is just a formality with no meaningful impact. (The top leader has) weak digital leadership so it’s useless even if it exists, (there is a steering committee but it is not running according to its main duties,) even though this committee is actually very important” (Respondent #5).
Furthermore, with regards to the establishment of the transformation team, we surveyed individuals who expressed skepticism regarding the significance of this activity for the process of transformation. The respondent expressed that on certain occasions, the team development process fails to include all the digital talents that are accessible and lacks strategic thought. This, in turn, raises concerns about the team’s effectiveness in the transformation process. The absence of collaboration and teamwork may impede the transformation process.
“Not engaging all available digital talents, and a lack of leadership commitment to digital strategy” (Respondent #1).
“Some team members may not keep their commitments and explore completely different ideas” (Respondent #2).
Regarding the activity of assessing transformation readiness, respondents believe that this activity may not be highly important because there have already been identification processes carried out previously, such as identifying the external and internal conditions of the organization and the available service ecosystem within the agency, thus eliminating the necessity for further assessment. Regarding its implementation, respondents stated that there hasn’t been a team formed to conduct this assessment yet.
“(Readiness assessment) is not yet a necessity. Ready or not, we just decide this via resources analysis” (Respondent #6).
There is currently no available team to assess the readiness of transformation”(Respondent #1).
2) Design Phase
The results obtained in the design phase indicate that all activities have high average values (greater than 4). This indicates that all activities in this phase are considered important by the respondents. There are several activities with high standard deviation values, indicating diverse perceptions regarding the importance of those activities. FIGURE 10 shows the minimum, maximum, and average values of each activity in this phase.
Minimum, maximum, and mean value for perception level of importance on each activity in design phase.
The three activities with the highest average values are “designing, building, and testing service system” (A-VAR_2-10), “analyzing current business processes and functions” (A-VAR_2-1), and “analyzing future business processes and functions” (A-VAR_2-3). Meanwhile, the three activities with the lowest average values are “procuring transformation project implementation services” (A-VAR_2-8) with the lowest average value among all transformation activities, followed by “adopting, installing, and managing IT technology and infrastructure” (A-VAR_2-9) and “digitalizing and re-engineering business processes” (A-VAR_2-11). Another noteworthy activity, although having slightly higher importance values than the top three, is “evaluating/auditing transformation projects” (A-VAR_2-13). This activity is the only one with a minimum value of 1, indicating that some respondents consider this activity to be very unimportant for the transformation.
All respondents in the interview unanimously agree that the design, development, and testing activity of service systems are crucial for digital service transformation. The vast majority of participants hold the belief that the creation of service systems is the primary element of the design phase. Upon reviewing the available literature, it is evident that transformation is not solely limited to the advancement of service systems. It can also involve the adoption of technology [15], [19], [72], rationalization of procedures [15], [19], [70], and even the business processes reengineering [19], [70], [84]. Below is the viewpoint of one participant regarding this issue.
“Service continuity can only be achieved through the service system development process, I think stages such as technology adoption, business process changes, employee training, are follow-up activities of this work” (Respondent #4).
This is significant when considering the below-average value of technology adoption activities and IT infrastructure, as respondents believe that adoption should only occur when it is deemed necessary. Transformation should prioritize other critical initiatives, such as enhancing business operations and boosting product offerings for users.
“Technology adoption and installation should depend on needs because transformation does not always have to involve these activities” (Respondent #3).
“Adoption is not urgent, in fact it is a waste, because the main goal of transformation is to improve the agency’s core business, such as improving data processing (service) systems or utilizing (providing) data processing results” (Respondent #1).
However, while the activity of “digitalizing and re-engineering business processes” has a similar low average value as “technology adoption”, it does not exhibit as great of a standard deviation as the other activity. This is demonstrated by the minimum score for this action being 4, indicating that there are no respondents who express doubt or disagreement regarding the importance of this activity for transformation. The interview results yield the subsequent viewpoint.
“(Business process re-engineering) only if necessary, as occasionally business processes are suitable but (service) system is not” (Respondent #2).
Through interviews conducted on the activity of “analyzing current business processes and functions”, multiple participants concurred that this task holds significance. Identifying the issues present in business domains is an essential step in executing change. This is also in line with the “analyzing future business processes and functions” activity to pinpoint any existing deficiencies as a foundation for enhancements or alterations.
“Transformation, of course begins with issues discovered in current conditions that may be fixed right now” (Respondent #2).
“This (the activity of analyzing current and expected business processes and functions) is a crucial to understand the gap between to-be and as-is” (Respondent #1).
The activity of “procuring transformation project implementation services” is the one with the lowest average value among all transformation activities. One participant holds the belief that procurement activities are not invariably associated with transformation. Another participant contends that procurement is more appropriate for supporting infrastructure rather than service systems, as their organization currently possesses a sufficient number of IT specialists who can be effectively employed to construct the service systems internally.
“Procurement (activities) are only needed for transformation supporting infrastructure, not for system development, because our agency has an excess of skilled IT workers” (Respondent #2).
Nevertheless, this does not excuse the disregard for the significance of the activity in the process of transformation, as some agencies lack sufficient IT resources, making it essential to rely on third-party resources to facilitate transformation.
Furthermore, regarding the activity of evaluating/auditing transformation projects, interviews with many participants suggest that audit operations are consistently linked to financial issues and do not have any relevance to the current process of transformation. Indeed, certain participants see that the financial audit process hampers the freedom of transformation endeavors, as individuals engaged in the transformation become focused with fulfilling administrative paperwork requirements for inspection and audit objectives.
“Financial audits do not need to be involved in the transformation. Audits actually make us afraid to move (transform)” (Respondent #7).
Indeed, audits are not exclusively limited to financial reports. The transformation process typically includes performance audits and compliance audits, which are crucial to ensure that the transformation process remains aligned with the specified strategy and roadmap. In addition, audits can be utilized to evaluate the progress of ongoing transformation programs and prevent unsubstantiated assertions.
“Audits must be conducted to provide confidence and avoid ‘self-claims’ (assuming) digital transformation has been successful but (actually) cannot be felt by users” (Respondent #3).
“Evaluation or audit is an integral part of project work…”(Respondent #1).
3) Delivery Phase
A closer examination of the activity group in Delivery phase showed a consistent pattern in the assigned importance levels. The average importance values, which is greater than 4, suggested that respondents consistently viewed all activities in this phase as being between important and very important. The relatively low standard deviation values indicate a commendable level of consistency among respondents. FIGURE 11 shows the minimum, maximum, and average values for each activity in the delivery phase.
Minimum, maximum, and mean value for perception level of importance on each activity in delivery phase.
The three activities with the highest average values are “developing governance regulations and policies for creating a new working culture” (A-VAR_3-2), “enhancing competency and developing new skills” (A-VAR_3-5), and “socializing transformation product” (A-VAR_3-6). Although the training activity ranks among the top three important activities, there are still respondents who are unsure about its importance (rating it as 3). The activity “defining change management” (A-VAR_3-4), which is also crucial for managing transformation, does not rank among the top three important activities. Meanwhile, the three activities with the lowest average values are “rolling out technology/service system” (A-VAR_3-7), “preparing the environment for go-live” (A-VAR_3-3), and “operationalizing new service/process activities” (A-VAR_3-8).
According to the interviews with respondents, developing governance regulations and policies is seen as the most important action because legal provisions are necessary when implementing the product of transformation design in the workplace. Regulations are put in place to ensure that all parties involved are willing to comply with the evolving process that arises from the implementation of transformation. The respondent underscored this point with the following statement.
“This (regulation or policy) is important; the development of a new culture indeed requires enforcement both by the system and regulations”(Respondent #4).
However, respondents also express dissatisfaction with the inadequate implementation of these policies, which obstructs the process of transformation. Respondents attribute this to a deficiency in commitment, particularly from certain leaders, in enforcing these regulations.
“Regulations are intended to be put into practice, not to remain only legal documents” (Respondent #2).
Additionally, other activities with high average values include conducting training and socializing transformation products. Respondents assert that training is crucial to establish a common comprehension of the utilization of transformation products and to ensure that all employees grasp the digital transition being carried out by the organization. Socialization is crucial because it enables stakeholders to comprehend the current transition. Some individuals argue that socializing is a demonstration of the successful completion of the transformation process, as it involves presenting the transformed products to users.
“(Socialization is) part of celebrating transformational achievements and socializing the value of transformation results”(Respondent #5).
We then asked respondents about their perception of uncertainty about training and the acquisition of new skills and competences. According to the interview data, several training sessions did not include follow-up implementation. Furthermore, some respondents consider that the training sessions are not in line with the intended transformation goals.
“Too much training is wasted because it just stops without any follow-up and utilization”(Respondent #2).
We requested respondents’ comments on the topic of implementing technology/service systems, setting up the go-live environment, and operationalizing new service/business processes, all of which have low average values. Respondents indicated uncertainty due to their perception that these activities do not contribute significantly to the transformation or are not integral to the overall change.
“(This is) usually done (in every system development), regardless of whether this (activity) is part of transformation action or not” (Respondent #1).
Nevertheless, there are respondents who contend that these tasks are indispensable during the implementation phase. One respondent noted that the preparation of the go-live environment is a crucial task in the transformation process, especially in terms of providing value to consumers.
“Providing value as soon as possible (to service users) is crucial, hence (setting up) this go-live environment is important” (Respondent #5).
“Launching products must be performed so they (consumers) are aware of new services as soon as feasible. Besides, it marks the start of the changes being put into practice” (Respondent #8).
4) Evaluation Phase
The analysis of Evaluation phase showed that respondents consistently assigned high importance levels to the activities in this group, with average values greater than 4. The standard deviation values suggest a uniformity of perception among respondents. The values for each activity are shown in FIGURE 12.
Minimum, maximum, and mean value for perception level of importance on each activity in evaluation phase.
The three activities with the highest average values in this phase are “evaluating implementation results” (A-VAR_4-2), “assessing implementation result outcomes” (A-VAR_4-3), and “establishing a forum to identify progress and input from implementation results” (A-VAR_4-1). The remaining two activities, “developing recommendations for further transformation” (A-VAR_4-5) and “analyzing recent transformation developments” (A-VAR_4-4), are activities with low average values.
According to the interview results, the assessment activity is deemed highly important as it is directly linked to the ongoing enhancement of the services. An alternative viewpoint is that an evaluation should be conducted to determine the extent to which the objectives of the activity coincide with the initial planning. Furthermore, evaluation functions as an appraisal of the results of implementation in order to offer insights for enhancing future phase.
“Evaluation has to be done in order to determine how much the planned objectives (which have been achieved) align” (Respondent #3).
In our next interview on the assessment of public value, respondents emphasized the significance of doing this activity as it directly contributes to the realization of the vision, purpose, and objectives of government agencies. Respondents also proposed that this could serve as a performance indicator for delivering public services.
“Public value (as an assessment indicator) is sufficient enough to see improvements in our services…Besides that, it can be relevant for (assesment like) public service innovation or SPBE” (Respondent #5).
However, the outcomes of the discussion, which provide uncertain values, suggest that the aforementioned evaluation activities are occasionally inefficient and encounter difficulties due to constraints in the available human resources. Furthermore, the need to engage in other projects following the successful implementation of these activities also poses challenges to performing evaluations and assessments.
“Sometimes, we have to do other tasks and don’t carry out in-depth assessments” (Respondent #8).
The interview results regarding the activity with the lowest average value (analyzing recent transformation developments) indicate that respondents who are uncertain about the importance of this activity believe that the analysis is not sufficiently focused on the utilization of the latest technology that is truly required for next transformation. It may not be compatible with the existing capabilities of the agency.
“What uses can be suggested for the next transformation are many, but we need to examine more (and whether that is actually necessary)”(Respondent #5).
However, this viewpoint does not undermine the significance of this activity as it will provide input for the upcoming action, which involves preparing recommendations for future transformation initiatives. Respondents consider this to be vital since recommendations are necessary to guarantee that progress and advancements persist in the following phases. Below is a statement provided by one of the respondents.
“Every evaluation has to be followed by recommendations in order to improve the next phase”(Respondent #3).
Based on the conducted survey and interviews, it can be inferred that all procedures and activities involved in the digital service transformation under this suggested framework are deemed significant. This is apparent from the survey’s average ratings, which exceed 4 for all activities. Interviews further corroborate this finding, as the majority of participants emphasize the significance of these activities, albeit with differing degrees of perception. Empirical study has verified that all procedures and activities included in the transformation process within the suggested framework are essential for the successful implementation of digital service transformation in the public sector.
Conclusion
Implementing digital service transformation in the public sector is essential for minimizing maladministration in the provision of public services. Additionally, it plays an important role in facilitating the successful implementation of bureaucratic reform and served as an integral component of the national medium-term development plan. Achieving transformation in the public sector requires the availability of a comprehensive framework. Prior to this research, the literature survey revealed that the frameworks we encountered were constrained to particular activities, primarily theoretical, and lacked the necessary specificity for use in the public sector. This research aims to design a formal reference framework that comprehensively outlines all activities involved in digital service transformation in the public sector. The development of framework is conducted using a theoretical approach with qualitative meta-synthesis method and an empirical approach through surveys and interviews.
Implementing digital service transformation in public sector is essential for minimizing mal-administration in the provision of public service. Additionally, it plays an important role in facilitating the successful implementation of bureaucratic reform and served as an integral component of the national medium-term development plan. Achieving transformation in the public sector requires the availability of a comprehensive framework. Prior to this research, the literature survey revealed that the frameworks we encountered were constrained to particular activities, primarily theoretical, and lacked the necessary specificity for use in the public sector. This research aims to design a formal reference framework that comprehensively outlines all activities involved in digital service transformation in the public sector. The development of framework is conducted using a theoretical approach with qualitative meta-synthesis method and an empirical approach through surveys and interviews.
The conceptual framework generated by the meta-synthesis process has components such as lifecycle, stages and activities, critical success factors, and measurement methods/tools. The transformation lifecycle consists of four phases, while the transformation actions are detailed into thirteen stages and forty activities. Each activity contained components such as description or objective, recommended method or task, tools, requirements, deliverables, related success factors, and actors or roles and their respective responsibilities.
Survey and interview activities were conducted to confirm and improve the conceptual framework based on the insights of practitioners engaged in digital service transformation in public sector. Thirty-five respondents from eleven government entities were surveyed, and eight of them agreed to be interviewed. The results indicate that the transformation activity within this framework is considered important by the respondents. The empirical study results confirmed the relevance of the proposed framework to the transformation requirements of public agencies in Indonesia.
This research exclusively focused on studying the transformation of digital public service in public institution in Indonesia. The literature review is specifically focused on discussing the digital service transformation in public sector, intentionally excluding works related to digital transformation in a broader sense during meta-synthesis selection process. Furthermore, the study solely examined the circumstances of transformation in government institutions specifically inside the Republic of Indonesia. The framework developed could also be enriched with user guides, templates, examples, and a more diverse range of measurement tools to enhance its utilization. Furthermore, additional components such as security aspects, risk management, and expansion of institutional frameworks could be added. These aspects present opportunities for further research.
With this work, we laid the basis for future research. Among our future research plans is to evaluate this framework within governmental units providing digital services. The first purpose is to enhance the framework, including the completion of templates structure for each activity. The second purpose is to assess the performance efficacy of this framework relative to the methods or frameworks presently employed by the unit. This comparative evaluation will consider various aspects, such as user-friendliness (process aspect), feedback from stakeholders involved in utilizing the framework (people aspect), and the quality of the products or artifacts generated by the framework (product aspect).
Appendix BList of Literature for Meta-Synthesis
List of Literature for Meta-Synthesis
See Table 14.
