Does Digital Public Service Complaint Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Upik Yogyakarta and Qlue Jakarta

Main Article Content

Dina Nurhidayati

Abstract

Public services provided by government have been an intensively researched topic. Not much literature addresses principle of accountability in digital public service innovation. This study aims to identify the extent which accountability can be promoted in the utilization of digital public complaints services, using descriptive qualitative methods with Bovens Model accountability function approach. In the form of a comparative study to compare unit of analysis as public service innovation handling digital based complaints UPIK and Qlue. The results of study were carried out after a comparison of accountability analysis, based on indicators of digital based public service accountability functions. The findings are: First, accountability influenced by four functions,(1)Democratic control,(2)Guarantees,(3)Learning, (4)Performance. Second, different periods of leadership influence the dynamics of accountability development. In conclusion, accountability function embedded by Qlue was being able to cutdown bureaucrats efficiently, in addition to the political system, leadership commitment and dynamic user existence. The quality of the UPIK system is still below Qlue, but UPIK's accountability capacity is more consistent in fulfilling the elements to promote accountability through effective complaints handling mechanisms. Not only more modern facilities, the performance of program that have supported by models and appropriate complaints handling mechanisms also capable of promoting accountable organizations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
NURHIDAYATI, Dina. Does Digital Public Service Complaint Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Upik Yogyakarta and Qlue Jakarta. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 127-141, june 2019. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <http://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/139>. Date accessed: 19 nov. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v3i2.139.
Section
Articles

References

Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia [APJII]. (2017). Penetrasi & perilaku pengguna internet indonesia profil pengguna internet Indonesia. Jakarta: Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia. Retrieved November 23, 2018, from https://www.apjii.or.id.

Aucoin, P., & Heintzman, R. (2000). The dialectics of accountability for performance in public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 45-55.

Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. (2015). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration Blackwell Publishing, 86(1), 225–242.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.

Chan, S. M., Cho, M., & Lee, S. (2013). User perceptions of social media: A comparative study of perceived characteristics. Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 3(4), 149-178.

Cohen, S., Rossi, F. M., Caperchione, E., & Brusca, I. (2018). Local government administration systems and local government accounting information needs: Is there a mismatch?. International Review of Administrative Sciences. doi: 1177/0020852317748732

CPPS UGM. (2014). Hasil pengukuran IKM pada pelayanan UPIK 2014. Retrieved November 23, 2018, from https://cpps.ugm.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/RINGKASAN-EKSEKUTIF-Hasil-Pengukuran-IKM-Pelayanan-UPIK-2014.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design: Pendekatan kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan mixed. Yogyakarta: PT Pustaka Pelajar.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. New York: M.E Sharpe, Armonk.

Ghilad, S. (2008). Accountability or expectations management? The role of the ombudsman in financial Regulation. Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, 30(20), 228-253.

Hammami, S. M. (2011). Exploring the information technology contribution to service recovery performance through knowledge management system. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 41(3), 296-314.

Irvine, C., Robertson, R., & Clark, B. (2010). Alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes: A literature review (Rep.). UK: University of Strathclyde.

Jarvis, M. (2015). The black box of bureaucracy: Interrogating accountability in the public service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(4), 450–466.

McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding media: The extension of man. London & NewYork: Gingko Press.

Ombudsman Western Australia. (2017). Guidelines: effective handling of complaints made to your organisation–An overview. Retrieved September 22, 2018, from http://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/guidelines/Effective-handling-of-complaints-made-to-your-organisation.pdf.

Osborne, & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneur spirit is transforming the public service (A. Rosyid & Ramelan, Trans.). Jakarta: Pustaka Binaman Pressindo.

Osborne, S. (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspective on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge

Peters, B. G. (2010). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration, 6th edition. New York: Routledge.

Portal Resmi Pemerintah Kota Yogyakarta [Web log post]. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from https://jogjakota.go.id.

Portal Resmi Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta [Web log post]. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from https://jakarta.go.id/

Portal Jakarta Smart City [Web log post]. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from www.smartcity.jakarta.go.id.

Pramusinto, A. (2013). Building complaint handling mechanisms for effective leadership. International Journal of Administrative Science and Organization, 2(3), 144-152.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge. (2008). Organizational Behavior (Second Edition). Jakarta: Salemba.

Ross, H. L, & Littlefeld, N. O. (2013). Complaint as a problem-solving mechanism. Law & Society Review, 12(2), 202.

Rotchanakitumnuai, S. (2013). The governance evidence of e-government procurement. Transforming government: People, Process and Policy, 7(3), 309-321.

Starling, G. (2008). Managing the public sector 8th edition. Boston, M. A.: Thompson Wadsworth.

Sururi. (2017). Inovasi kebijakan dalam perspektif administrasi publik menuju terwujudnya good public policy governance. Spirit Publik, 12(2), 14-31.

Sztompka, P. (2011). Sosiologi perubahan sosial. Jakarta: Prenada Media. 27.

Qlue [Web log post]. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from http://www.qlue.co.id/.

Unit Pelayanan Informasi dan Keluhan (UPIK) Pemerintah Kota Yogyakarta [Web log post]. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from http://upik.jogjakota.go.id.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2008). Pengantar teori komunikasi, analisis dan aplikasi (Third Edition). Jakarta: Salemba Humanika.

Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297.

Yang, K. (2012). Further understansing accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the structure-agency duality. Administration and Society, 44(3), 255-284. doi: 10.1177/00953999711417699

Yohanitas, A. W. (2016). Creating good governance through innovation in public service at Surakarta Municipality. Jurnal Borneo Administrasi, 12(3), 239-257.