Rational Intervention Public Policy for Public Service Innovation

This study aims to discuss and compare population administration innovations in two different regencies to gain an understanding of how policies can intervene in public service innovations. Innovation is dependent on government policy as a guide for good public service development strategies. Policy intervention in public service innovation gives special attention to the coherent implementation of public service innovations. The policy will affect further innovation development although it can be excluded from some innovation programs. Therefore, this research compares the innovation efforts of population administration in two different regencies to gain a better understanding of how policies intervene in public service innovation. This research was conducted in the Aceh Tenggara and Majalengka regencies in May-June 2019. Qualitative methods were used in this research with a comparative analysis (Qualitative Comparative Analysis). Data was obtained through a cross-sectional study and data analysis using a set and concept technique. With a theoretical guide developed by Hartley (2005), this research provides information that not all regency (government institutions) can innovate for a variety of reasons, and that decision-makers must be transformative leaders for their region in order to bring out the idea of innovation. In addition, managers should be able to translate policy intent and objectives with service programs. Further development of public service innovations and citizen participation is needed as respondents and external supervisors. That way policy interventions can provide opportunities for change in government institutions by reviewing policy goals and objectives, as well as the linkage factor between local and national policies being the main consideration.

. Innovation policy goals are often economic, such as economic growth, productivity, carried out in most local governments to improve public services in general initiated with a joint movement launched by local government leaders.
For example, Klungkung Regency of Bali Province with population data validation innovation i.e Predator program. Predator is the recording of KTP-el data using motorcycles, a modus operandi that officers take down to villages to data record for people with special needs and also reach faraway areas. This innovation is a derivative of an Aksi Gema Santi (Gerakan Masyarakat Santun dan Inovatif) which was initiated directly by local government leaders.
Innovation policies are partly influenced by dialogue between policy and theory. The discussion of these reasons is inherently related to the theoretical approach chosen to explain innovation and technological change. New theoretical insights provide a reason for new actions while old actions should be able to provide a reason why old theories are abandoned (Agolla & Lill, 2013;Arnold, 2014). Innovation as a complex interactive process has important implications for the design and implementation of all innovation policies (Edquist & Johnson, 2005;Agger & Sorensen, 2016). Innovation policies or other types of public intervention should pay attention to the need for innovation implementation and future implications.
Policy intervention involves all actions, programs, or activities taken or mandated by government actors. This includes, for example, regulations, incentives, information schemes, and provision of infrastructure. Policy interventions often discuss various steps including technology, processes, applications, and behavior (Kanger, Sovacool, & Noorkõiv, 2020), which will also benefit regional leaders to carry out leadership missions (Grube, 2010). Therefore, this research is related to public policy interventions for innovative applications that will affect innovation outcomes (Vries, et al., 2015;Wang, 2018). It is not always right, but "policy" continues to provide interventions involving more abstraction, uncertainty, and empirical evidence. For example, in innovation, policy interventions are needed to ensure good implementation of innovation (Kanger, Sovacool, & Noorkõiv, 2020) and the effectiveness and efficiency of innovative policies and practices (Chaminade & Esquist, 2010). Policy interventions will influence many innovation tools and tend to be more design-oriented, service-oriented, and may require significant adaptation before adjusting to the public policy environment (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017;Damuri, et al., 2018). Intervention is not a pressing meaning, but in policy "intervention" it is intended to see the gap between policy and policy objects (Kanger, Sovacool, & Noorkõiv, 2020) and increase understanding of the change process (Peters & Pierre, 2015) and efforts to implement policies (Hage, Jordan, & Mote, 2007).
For example, public service innovations in the Aceh Tenggara and Majalengka regencies, some national policies have become the main guide for increasing population data recording.
Although guided by the same policy, the obtained results were different. For example, to provide public services in the field of population data, Aceh Tenggara Regency has made some innovations with the theme "Pelput" or services to be picked up to complete population data recording using mobile cars starting in 2017. However, in May 2019 in the Aceh Tenggara Regency, there were 4,784 who have not recorded data from a total population of 212,417. In contrast to the Majalengka Regency, which continues to innovate with the theme of a movement initiated by regional leaders as evidenced by some awards such as a highly innovative area, the establishment of a public service integrity zone. Therefore, innovation (public service) generally begins with a local government movement. Innovation must be driven by policymakers, managers, and citizens. In general, innovation in population and civil registration is driven by a set of rules previously described.  (Vargas & Restrepo, 2019). From a variety of approach instruments to innovation processes, economic factors tend to be noticed more because innovation requires a budget (Agger & Sorensen, 2016;Arundel, et al., 2019). Intervention is also needed to support policy instruments in order to better demonstrate the planned results (Arceneaux & Butler, 2015).
This study aims to discuss and compare population administration innovations in two different areas to get an idea of how policies can intervene in public service innovations. That this research is also a starting point to explore the insights and opportunities of innovation policies in different areas. On the other hand, many related studies that can be elaborated in this article for analysis, are expected to be able to answer questionable research problems on how the policy interventions of Aceh Tenggara and Majalengka regencies in population administration public service innovation.

Policy Intervention in public service innovation
Policy objectives are determined in the political process and not by researchers. Policy Intervention aims to encourage the better utilization of service innovation towards efficiency.
Policy intervention involves any action, program, or activity taken. Such an innovation policy can be defined as a public action that affects the innovation process, development, and diffusion of innovation (products and processes). Innovation policy objectives are often economic, perhaps also from non-economic types, such as cultural, social, environmental, or military.
Innovation means the significant adoption of methods of production or innovation delivery including changes to the manner, governance, and use of equipment. Innovation is not only about generating new ideas that are utilizing technology but how innovation can be built sustainably starting from a basic innovation understanding (Banerjee & Ceri, 2016). Innovation is influenced by many factors that occur in the interactions between organizational elements and is referred to as the innovation system. It is considered by many to be a useful and promising analytical tool for a better understanding of innovations in knowledge production and distribution (Arnold, 2014;Arundel, et al., 2019).
Innovation also needs to identify the things that are most likely to influence innovation so that it can be carried out successfully with a continuous and structured evaluation (Uyarra et al., 2020). As in article 389 of Law of Republic Indonesia No. 23/2014 about Local Government, it is stated that in the case of implementing innovations that have become Local Government policies and these innovations do not achieve the stated targets, the state civil apparatus cannot be convicted. Therefore, local innovation is a constitutional mandate that is carried out by the regions independently, it is necessary to comprehensively trace those involved in the production and implementation of innovation policies. Hartley (2005) mentions three innovative approaches to the public service sector to assess the extent of policy intervention is policymakers, managers, and citizens. This approach will provide an overview of public service innovation efforts.
The innovation process means the significant adoption of improved methods of production or innovation delivery including changes to the manner, governance, and use of equipment.
Innovation is not only about generating new ideas which are translated by utilizing technology but how innovation can be built sustainably starting from understanding basic innovation (Banerjee & Ceri, 2016). Innovation is influenced by many factors that occur in the interactions between organizational elements and is referred to as the innovation system. It is considered by many to be a useful and promising analytical tool for a better understanding of innovations in knowledge production and distribution (Arnold, 2014;Arundel, et al., 2019). Then easily understood innovation is a term to denote a process, or as a strategy to organization change, and organization's service activities.
Finding new ideas/ways for organizations is innovation, so innovation must be done from the innovation process itself by thinking that the resulting product is fully in line with the aims and objectives (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020).
Innovation also needs to identify the things that are most likely to influence the innovation to be carried out successfully with continuous and structured evaluation (Uyarra et al., 2020). Hartley (2005) mentions three innovative approaches to the public service sector, namely policy-makers, managers and citizens. This approach will provide an overview of public service innovation efforts.
One way that can be achieved is to empower educational institutions, research collaboration can be done when an area does not have a research and development or regional innovation agency. performance. The view that policy may have a role in supporting innovation has been widespread, and the term innovation policy has become commonly used (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017).
But policymakers tend to be approached by authorities who hope to influence policy, from lobbyists and interest groups to constituents or academics.
In addition, in designing innovation policies, policymakers often lack the tools to identify problems in the system to choose policies that support innovation and competency development to address them. In general in developing countries the innovation system is very heterogeneous, each system is embedded in a unique socio-economic institutional context (Chaminade & Esquist, 2010). Government policies and regulations can promote or hinder innovation. Strict and focused policies and regulations have the potential to stimulate significant and fundamental changes in process products and technologies. However, policies and regulations can create barriers and restrictions that are sometimes a barrier to innovation (Patanakul & Pinto, 2014).
Second, the influence of management has an impact on innovation performance, and innovation decisions usually involve managers as a screening mechanism to consider a series of external and internal factors that increase the likelihood of innovation outcomes. Therefore, in government, a "manager" is the policy executor.
The manager will be responsible for implementing any policy decisions taken by an administrator.
Third, citizens are users of government innovation in other words that the user (society) is the object of government activities. The existence of innovation is increasingly important for use in government activities, and technology is generally influenced also by user behavior (Thapa, et al., 2015). User behavior becomes an idea of how much innovation is acceptable and leveraged.
Therefore, the government cannot simply carry out innovation without seeing the consequences that arise as a further development effort. Citizen participation will increase if the government delivers quality public services. On the other hand, citizens need to be treated as a service evaluator with a discussion channel to provide opinions.  Table 1: The reasons for selecting informants in Table 1 provide information that they are considered involved in policy production, policy intervention, and implementing innovations. Indepth interviews were conducted with informants to obtain detailed meaning but still paid attention to the formulation of the problem so that the interview focused on the research theme. The data were obtained through a cross-sectional study technique which intends to observe data related to the study at a certain time. Observational cross-sectional studies were used to describe the characteristics of research subjects, but not to determine causal relationships. Furthermore, the results of empirical research will be described through a narrative of the results and discussion.

QCA Public Service Sector Innovation
First of all, the theory-set procedure on public service sector innovation for policymakers, managers, and citizens will be carried out with a venn diagram introspection developed by Ragin (2008) to pay attention to the need vs adequacy Source: Data Research (2019) (need vs sufficiency) of policy intervention, visualized as follows picture in Figure 1: improved access to quality public services.

Necessity
As previously described, the result of being part of the cause (necessity) in this research context, the result that begins with the causes of policy-makers is policies that must be implemented as national and local policies, which is illustrated in Table 2. For example, in the Aceh Tenggara Regency, innovation is very important in the public service sector to improve the effectiveness of the service, but the innovation ineffectiveness tends to be due to the culture of policy actors and society. The background of the cause tends to be due to a low level of knowledge towards conceptualization and innovation purposes, not only from the citizen as a recipient but also from the bureaucratic apparatus as a provider. In addition, the political situation can also intervene in innovation through policy, as a result, the situation between the legislature and executive in the policy process.
The innovation culture will be contaminated with patterns that illustrate that innovation is not the most important thing to do. In addition, the future challenges of delivering public services depend on the reflection of the needs. Consequences will form the public distrust of the government.

Sufficiency
The cause of part of the results (sufficiency) in the context of this research is the problem that causes local governments to innovate in the public service, which is illustrated in Table 3.
From Table 3 and the previous table,   the  and is referred to as the innovation system. It is regarded by many as a useful analytical tool and promises to better understand innovation in the production and distribution of knowledge.
Then it is easy to understand that innovation is a term to indicate the process, or as a strategy, to organizational change, and organization activity has been widespread, and the term "innovation policy" has become commonly used (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017). But policymakers tend to be approached by a large number of people who hope to influence policy, from lobbyists and interest groups to constituents or academics (Chaminade & Esquist, 2010).

In addition, in designing innovation
policies, policymakers often lack the tools to identify problems in the system to choose policies that support innovation and competency development to address them. In developing countries the innovation system is generally highly heterogeneous; each system is embedded in a unique socio-economic institutional context. that are sometimes a barrier to innovation (Patanakul & Pinto, 2014). In some studies identified in general, the cause of public service innovation occurred due to specific public policy (Daniels, et al., 2017;Edler & Fagerberg, 2017), transformative manager (Klimentova, 2014;Kim & Yoon, 2015), citizen involvement (Huang & Feeney, 2015;Thapa, et al., 2015).

Tabel 3. Sufficiency Public Service Innovation (Population and Registration Record) Aceh Tenggara Regency vs. Majalengka Regency
No  (2019) On the other hand, management influence (managers) has an impact on innovation performance, and innovation decisions usually involve managers as a screening mechanism to consider a series of external and internal factors that increase the likelihood of innovation outcomes (Banerjee & Ceri, 2016), a "manager" is the policy executor. The manager will be responsible for implementing any policy decisions taken by an administrator. To carry out all the knowledge capacity becomes the main innovation consideration implementation (Arnold, 2014;Arundel, et al., 2019). technology is generally influenced also by user behavior (Thapa, et al., 2015). One way that can be achieved is to empower educational institutions, research collaboration can be done when an area does not have a research and development regional innovation, maintaining the innovation continuity to be developed. Citizen participation will increase if the government delivers quality public services.
On the other hand, citizens need to be treated as service evaluators with a discussion channel and can provide opinions. The initiation of public service innovation is often associated with the implementation of bureaucratic reforms. Although often understood as a political motive solely to mobilize policies as a consequence of national independence, anti-corruption movements, consolidation of political elites, economic market expansion, job extraction, and accommodation of foreign interests (Asatryan, et al., 2016;Gaus, et al., 2017;Berman & Prasojo, 2018).
In conditions that are always left behind to present public services, the aspiration, encouragement, and the hope of change gives a sign that reform will always be there (Dwiyanto, 2015). On the other hand, reform is also a powerful practice that operates in a discursive process through claims of truth on certain reform models (Paskarina, 2017). Reform reflects more than just organizational change and is becoming a common phenomenon in modern government organizations today. Sometimes reform is also a veiled agenda of most donor institutions on the grounds that government-run activities need change to increase investment (Ikeanyibe, 2015).
Crisis of trust, economic crisis, bureaucratic pathology, and poor public services are strong pushers for reform (Neshkova & Kostadinova, 2012;Kim & Han, 2014). Increased organizational activity that makes many demands of innovation and complexity can encourage organizations to work more quickly in answering demands. The success of bureaucracy to deliver quality public services is not only supported by a pattern of good governance, institutions free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism, but quality human resources are a matter of serious concern.
Critical citizen levels are required for the external oversight of government activities to increase public trust. Public trust will increase when governments with various programs and policies can improve the quality of public services.
Although the government's public service has improved, the consequences of public distrust remain a concern to continue to seek a problem solution. Therefore, citizen participation is a process that gives the public the opportunity to influence public decisions and has long been a component of the democratic decision-making process (Huang & Feeney, 2015;Thapa, et al., 2015). On the other hand, citizen participation in government activities occurs due to pressure from the public, but using citizen participation in planning and supervision efforts is timeconsuming and costly due to the level of problem mastery and limited knowledge. Nevertheless, public participation in the democratic era is increasingly needed and considered a leverage component to participate in national development (Bobbio, 2019).