Citizen-Oriented Service Delivery and Innovation (A Case Study of Passport Office in Indonesia)

Agung Sulistyo Purnomo


Public service delivery in Indonesia had undergone several adjustments since 1998 until the present time. This reform is marked by the utilization of Information and communication technology in public services. The Directorate General of Immigration (Imigrasi) is one of public agencies that make the most of this technology development by launching of wide range of innovations in the field of public services. Consequently, according to the internal survey, public satisfaction level rises significantly. This outstanding achievement, however, is the subject of contestation before the principles of the New Public Service and the fundamental values of the Critical System Heuristics. As a support to these frameworks, a collaboration model from the Theory of Change will be elaborated. It is expected that this model will be favorable for achieving the high quality public services. The project uses secondary data obtained from imigrasi and assessed by qualitative method. This work explores the appropriate ways to deliver the public services, especially in the Online Passport Service program and the following innovations as well as its implication towards public satisfaction level and trust. Some possible recommendations such as institutionalizing public participation and adopting semi-autonomous system of local offices are believed to become a solutive decision towards world class public services.  


public service; citizen-oriented; passport office; innovation; public satisfaction

Full Text:




Andrews, M. & Shah, A. (2003). Citizen-centered governance: A new approach to public sector reform. bringing civility in governance. In Handbook of Public Sector Performance Reviews (pp. 1–36). Washington DC: The World Bank.

Denhardt, J. V, & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service expanded edition serving, not steering. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Retrieved from

Druke, H. (2007). Can e-government make public governance more accountable? In A. Shah (Ed.), performance accountability and combating ccrruption (pp. 59–87). Washington: The World Bank.

Funnell, S. C. & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Key ideas in program theory. In purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic Models (pp. 1–14).

McIntyre-Mills, J. (2003). Critical systemic praxis for social and environmental justice Participatory Policy Design and Governance for a Global Age. Contemporary Systems Thinking. New York: Springer+Business Media New York.

Ulrich, W. (1996). A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Hull: The University of Hull.


Bishop, P. & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(March), 14–29.

Bovaird, T. & Löffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the quality of public governance: Indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative ..., 69(200309), 313–328. Retrieved from

Brinkerhoff, D. W. & Wetterberg, A. (2013). Performance-based public management reforms: Experience and emerging lessons from service delivery improvement in Indonesia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 433–457.

Chatzoglou, P. Chatzoudes, D. Vraimaki, E. & Diamantidis, A. (2013). Service quality in the public sector: The case of the citizen’s service centers (CSCs) of greece. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(6), 583–605.

Chen, H. T. (2012). Theory-driven evaluation: Conceptual framework, application and advancement. In Evaluation von Programmen und Projekten für Eine Demokratische Kultur (p. 226). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Conyers, D. (1986). Decentralization and development - a framework for Analysis. Community Development Journal, 21, 88–100.

Conyers, D. (2007). Decentralisation and service delivery: Lessons from sub-saharan Africa. IDS Bulletin, 38(1), 18–32.

De Blasio, E. & Selva, D. (2016). Why choose open government? Motivations for the adoption of open government policies in four european countries. Policy Studies Organisation, 225–247.

Denhardt, J. V. & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(October), 664–672.

Gidron, N. & Bonikowski, B. (2013). Varieties of populism: Literature review and research agenda. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Working Paper Series, No. 4, (13), 1–38.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.

Hood, C. & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282.

Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.

Jagers, J. & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 319–345.

Jütting, J. Corsi, E. Kauffmann, C. Mcdonnell, I. Osterrieder, H. Pinaud, N. & Wegner, L. (2005). What makes decentralisation in developing countries Pro-poor? The European Journal of Development Research, 17(4), 626–648.

Martin, C. (2014). Barriers to the open government data agenda: Taking a multi-level perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(3), 217–240.

McIntyre, J. (2005). Part 1: Working and re-working the conceptual and geographical boundaries of governance and international relations. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(2), 173–220.

McIntyre, J. J. (2003). Participatory democracy: Drawing on C. West Churchman’s thinking when making public policy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 20(6), 489–498.

Robinson, M. (2007). Does decentralisation improve equity and efficiency in public service delivery provision? IDS Bulletin, 38(1), 7–17.

Shah, A. (2006). Corruption and decentralized public governance. In Handbook of Fiscal Federalism(pp. 478–498). Retrieved from

Ulrich, W. (2012). Operational research and critical systems thinking—an integrated perspective part 2: OR as argumentative practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(9), 1307–1322.

Warner, M. E. & Hefetz, A. (2008). Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public-private delivery of city services. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 155–166.

Wirawan, R. Mardiyono, & Nurpratiwi, R. (2015). Partisipasi masyarakat dalam perencanaan pembangunan daerah. JISIP: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 4(2), 1–87.

Other Resources:

ActKnowledge, & The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. (2003). Guided Example: Project Superwomen. Theory of Change. New York: ActKnowledge and The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.

Carlsson, S. A. (2004). Enabling and Enhancing Potential Absorptive Capacity Through the Use of Ict. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities, 1–17. Retrieved from

Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi. (2016). Sunset Passport Service. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from

Ministry of Law and Human Rights. (2015). Laporan Kinerja Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. Jakarta.

UNDP. (1997). Reconceptualising Governance. New York.

World Population Review. (2016). Jakarta Population 2016. Retrieved October 4, 2016, from



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of JEKP (e-ISSN:2528-4673 p-ISSN:2086-6313).