Transformasi Digital di Pinggiran: Kerangka Konseptual Manajemen Peningkatan Kinerja Aparat Kampung di Wilayah Perbatasan Papua Selatan (Kasus Ilustratif Kampung Matara, Kabupaten Merauke)
Abstract
This Research on public-sector digital transformation is dominated by studies of national and urban governments with adequate infrastructure, whereas the smallest governmental units in peripheral regions, such as villages (kampung) on the southern Papua border, remain theoretically underexplored. Village-level studies in Indonesia also tend to treat digitalisation as a matter of application adoption, detached from the management of staff performance. This article develops a conceptual framework explaining how digital transformation can be managed to improve village staff performance under constrained infrastructure, capacity, and connectivity. Using a conceptual-article design based on theory synthesis, the study combines an integrative literature review, policy document analysis, and secondary data, with Matara Village, Merauke Regency, as an illustrative case. The analysis yields the Peripheral Digital Transformation Framework (PDTF), consisting of four interdependent layers, namely infrastructure foundation, staff digital capacity, adaptive performance management, and process and data governance, moderated by a peripheral context of border geography, Special Autonomy, customary relations, and fiscal resources. The framework is translated into five theoretical propositions, a staged roadmap based on a “minimum viable digitalisation” principle, and an agenda for empirical verification. The article contributes by shifting the debate on village digital transformation from a technology-adoption logic to a context-sensitive performance-management logic, while warning against symbolic digitalisation in peripheral regions.
References
Aminah, S., & Saksono, H. (2021). Digital transformation of the government: A case study in Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2021-3702-17
Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.
Ashaye, O. R., & Irani, Z. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the effective use of e-government resources in public services. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.016
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025). Indeks pembangunan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi 2024. Badan Pusat Statistik.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). The future ain’t what it used to be: Forecasting the impact of ICT on the public sphere. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), Article 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101410
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170050
Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Flores-Zúñiga, M. Á. (2020). Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success: Integrating implementation and adoption factors. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), Article 101518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101518
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987.
Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? (iGovernment Working Paper No. 14). Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
Heeks, R. (2018). Information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). Routledge.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
Muhtar, E. A., Abdillah, A., Widianingsih, I., & Adikancana, Q. M. (2023). Smart villages, rural development and community vulnerability in Indonesia: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), Article 2219118. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2219118
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—Into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Andrews, M. (2013). Looking like a state: Techniques of persistent failure in state capability for implementation. Journal of Development Studies, 49(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.709614
Salemink, K., Strijker, D., & Bosworth, G. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Terry, G. R. (2019). Dasar-dasar manajemen. Bumi Aksara.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Zavratnik, V., Kos, A., & Stojmenova Duh, E. (2018). Smart villages: Comprehensive review of initiatives and practices. Sustainability, 10(7), Article 2559. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072559
Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 47 Tahun 2016 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan Desa.
Peraturan Presiden Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik.
Peraturan Presiden Nomor 82 Tahun 2023 tentang Percepatan Transformasi Digital dan Keterpaduan Layanan Digital Nasional.
Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otonomi Khusus bagi Provinsi Papua, sebagaimana diubah terakhir dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2021.
Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 tentang Pelayanan Publik.
Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa, sebagaimana diubah terakhir dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2024.
Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2022 tentang Pembentukan Provinsi Papua Selatan.
Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi.
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Manajemen dan Ilmu Administrasi Publik (JMIAP)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
