Bureaucratic Reform Strategy to Realize Quality Digital Public Services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37899/mjds.v1i3.100Keywords:
Bureaucratic Reform , Digital Public Services , Stakeholder Perceptions , Resistance to Change , Public AdministrationAbstract
The proposed qualitative research paper will examine the strategies, challenges and perceptions of stakeholders in relation to the bureaucratic reform with the aim of improving digital public services. The paper establishes the efficiency of digital reforms such as the encouragement of the inclusive participation and the elimination of resistance to change through thorough interviews with the stakeholders, namely the government officials and information technology professionals. The results indicate that there is a sharp issue of organizational inertia and that it is critical to have clear evaluation measurements, which will help in the effective provision of digital services. Further, the perception of the stakeholders indicates that there is a great faith in the ability of digital public services to enhance access to government, efficiency and transparency in the government administration. Nevertheless, the success of such initiatives can be derailed, unless the root causes of such obstacles are considered and different stakeholders are involved in the reform process. The research is significant in that it adds to the existing body of literature on the need to comprehend human factors in digital transformation of public services, and highlights key role of promoting organisational culture of collaboration in public agencies. The experiences gained during this research are useful to policymakers and practitioners who work to overcome the challenges of the digital reform in the governmental setting and eventually improve the processes of service delivery and social trust.
References
AbdulKareem, A. K., Bello, M. L., Ishola, A. A., & Jimoh, L. A. (2020). E Government, information and communications technology support and paperless environment in Nigerian public universities: Issues and challenges. Journal of Technology Management and Business, 7(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtmb.2020.07.01.006
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2021). New development: COVID 19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1764206
Aissaoui, N. (2022). The digital divide: A literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID 19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71(8/9), 686–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-06-2020-0075
Bastardo, R., Pavão, J., & Rocha, N. P. (2024). Methodological quality of user-centered usability evaluation of digital applications to promote citizens’ engagement and participation in public governance: A systematic literature review. Digital, 4(3), 740–761. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/digital4030038
Blijleven, W., & van Hulst, M. (2021). How do frontline civil servants engage the public? Practices, embedded agency, and bricolage. The American Review of Public Administration, 51(4), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020983805
Cahyadi, E., Aldhi, I. F., Supriharyanti, E., Wijoyo, S., & Suhariadi, F. (2024). Fostering innovative culture for enhanced organizational health and performance in public organizations. Jurnal Manajemen Teori dan Terapan, 17(3).
Deep, G. (2023). Digital transformation's impact on organizational culture. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 10(2), 396–401
Diaz, J. (2021). Towards more 'e-volved' democracy: An exploration of digital governance in Estonia and the lessons it holds for strengthening democracy in the United States. NEXTEUK Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3999376.
Gkrimpizi, T., Peristeras, V., & Magnisalis, I. (2023). Classification of barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: Systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(7), 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070746
Ingrams, A., Piotrowski, S., & Berliner, D. (2020). Learning from our mistakes: Public management reform and the hope of open government. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(4), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa001
Kaur, M., Buisman, H., Bekker, A., & McCulloch, C. (2022). Innovative capacity of governments: A systemic framework. OECD
Klochan, V., Piliaiev, I., Sydorenko, T., Khomutenko, V., Solomko, A., & Tkachuk, A. (2021). Digital platforms as a tool for the transformation of strategic consulting in public administration. Journal of Information Technology Management, 13(Special Issue: Role of ICT in Advancing Business and Management), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2021.80736
Kübler, D., Rochat, P. E., Woo, S. Y., & Van der Heiden, N. (2020). Strengthen governability rather than deepen democracy: Why local governments introduce participatory governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(3), 409–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801508
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136–1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595
Lapuente, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gove.12502
Maulana, A., Indriati, F., & Hidayah, K. (2022). Analysis of bureaucratic reform through delayering of government institutions in Indonesia. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 18(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.24258/jba.v18i2.1003
Nesterenko, M., Mytsyk, H., Petryk, K., Kovachov, S., & Suchikova, Y. (2024). From resistance to acceptance: The role of higher education in the integration of STEM education for sustainable development. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41979-024-00141-0
Patel, A. R., Patel, A. A., Campisi, T., & Roscia, M. (2024, July). User-centered policy interventions for future cities. In A. Gervasi et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 153–167). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65329-2_10
Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2021). Weberian bureaucracy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Saha, M., & Sarkar, A. (2021). Review on multiple facets of drug resistance: A rising challenge in the 21st century. Journal of Xenobiotics, 11(4), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/jox11040013
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., … Moore, L. (2021). Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: Gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 25(57). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061
Troitiño, D. R., & Mazur, V. (2024). Digital social initiatives: Europe connecting citizens with social transformation. In D. R. Troitiño, T. Kerikmäe, & A. Chochia (Eds.), E-governance in the European Union: Strategies, tools, and implementation (pp. 71–85). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56045-3_6
