Citizen-Oriented Service Delivery and Innovation (A Case Study of Passport Office in Indonesia) [Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan Publik Berorientasi Kemasyarakatan dan Inovasi (Studi Kasus di Kantor Pelayanan Paspor di Indonesia)]
Agung Sulistyo Purnomo
| Abstract views: 722
| 
views: 350
Abstract
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.
Keywords: public service, citizen-oriented, passport office, innovation, public satisfaction
Abstrak
Penyelenggaraan pelayanan publik di Indonesia telah mengalami beberapa perubahan sejak kejatuhan rezim otoriter sampai saat sekarang. Perubahan ini ditandai dengan maraknya penggunaan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi di bidang pelayanan publik. Imigrasi adalah salah satu dari beberapa instansi publik yang sedang memaksimalkan perkembangan teknologi informasi ini dengan meluncurkan berbagai inovasi di bidangnya. Akibatnya, menurut data dari survei internal Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi, indeks kepuasan masyarakat terhadap penyelenggaraan pelayanan keimigrasian meningkat cukup tajam di tahun 2015. Pencapaian yang sangat memuaskan ini, bagaimanapun, menjadi target pembantahan dari sudut pandang dan prinsip-prinsip yang terkandung dalam paradigma new public service dan critical system heuristics. Sebagai penunjang terhadap dua teori ini, model kolaborasi dari theory of change juga akan dijabarkan. Sangat diharapkan bahwasanya model kolaborasi ini nantinya dapat digunakan untuk membantu pencapaian kualitas pelayanan publik yang prima. Kajian ini menggunakan data-data sekunder yang didapat dari Imigrasi dan diolah menggunakan metode kualitatif. Tulisan ini menyimpulkan penentuan cara yang tepat dalam penyelenggaraan pelayanan publik, khususnya di bidang pelayanan paspor online dan inovasi-inovasi yang mengikutinya beserta implikasinya terhadap tingkat kepuasan dan kepercayaan masyarakat. Beberapa rekomendasi seperti pencanangan program partisipasi publik dan penggunaan sistem kerja mandiri untuk kantor pelayanan di daerah diyakini dapat menjadi jalan keluar untuk menuju pelayanan publik berskala dunia.
Kata kunci: pelayanan publik, orientasi kemasyarakatan, kantor pelayanan paspor, inovasi, kepuasan masyarakatKeywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Books:
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 http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-663-10900-6.pdf
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.
Journals:
Bishop, P. & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(March), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00255
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 http://ras.sagepub.com/content/69/3/313.short
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313491059
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. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2012-0140
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19009-9
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2007.tb00334.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.118
Denhardt, J. V. & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(October), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347
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. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2459387
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh019
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810500367649
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-4157-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.577
Robinson, M. (2007). Does decentralisation improve equity and efficiency in public service delivery provision? IDS Bulletin, 38(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2007.tb00333.x
Shah, A. (2006). Corruption and decentralized public governance. In Handbook of Fiscal Federalism(pp. 478–498). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=877331%5Cnhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=877331
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. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.145
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00845.x
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 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.200.3337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi. (2016). Sunset Passport Service. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from http://www.imigrasi.go.id/index.php/berita/berita-utama/1112-sunset-passport-service-pada-selasa-dan-jumat-di-kanim-jakarta-barat
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 http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/jakarta-population/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
