Risk-Based Digital Governance in an Archipelagic Local Government: A Document-Based Study of the Lingga Regency Fisheries Office, Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69812/jgs.v3i1.201Keywords:
Digital Governance, Risk ManagementAbstract
Digital transformation has become an institutional requirement for local governments, yet the expansion of digital reporting, licensing, supervision, and public-service systems also creates operational, informational, organizational, and accountability risks. This study examines how risk management is embedded in the digital governance of the Lingga Regency Fisheries Office, an agency operating in an archipelagic jurisdiction where dispersed settlements, uneven connectivity, and cross-agency dependence intensify the consequences of digital disruption. A qualitative document-analysis design was employed. The evidence corpus comprised the agency’s 2024 Government Agency Performance Report, applicable national and regional regulations, organizational documents, statistical publications, and peer-reviewed studies on digital government, data governance, information security, and enterprise risk management. Data were reduced, coded, compared, and synthesized into a risk register, an indicative maturity profile, and a phased governance roadmap. The findings reveal a performance–risk paradox. The agency reported aggregate programme achievement of 99.71%, with several output indicators reaching or exceeding their targets, but the available documentation does not demonstrate a fully institutionalized digital-risk management cycle. Risk identification and operational control are visible in fragmented forms, whereas continuous monitoring, incident response, tested recovery, explicit risk ownership, interoperability governance, and systematic workforce development remain underdeveloped or insufficiently documented. The study argues that high output achievement should not be treated as evidence of digital resilience. It proposes a risk-based digital governance model that connects Indonesia’s Electronic-Based Government System, performance accountability, One Data principles, information-security controls, and inter-agency coordination.
Downloads
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Lingga. (2024). Kabupaten Lingga dalam angka 2024 [Lingga Regency in figures 2024]. BPS-Statistics of Lingga Regency.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
Bernardo, B., São Mamede, H., Barroso, J. M. P., & Santos, V. (2024). Data governance and quality management—Innovation and breakthroughs across different fields. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100598
Bisma, R. (2022). Information technology asset risk management: A case study of SPBE risk management implementation in the Balikpapan City Communication and Information Office. JIEET (Journal of Information Engineering and Educational Technology), 6(2), 73–79.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2017). Enterprise risk management: Integrating with strategy and performance.
Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
Dawes, S. S. (2009). Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003
de Bruijn, H., & Janssen, M. (2017). Building cybersecurity awareness: The need for evidence-based framing strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.007
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
Eom, S.-J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690
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
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2014). Presidential Regulation No. 29 of 2014 concerning the Government Agency Performance Accountability System.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2018). Presidential Regulation No. 95 of 2018 concerning the Electronic-Based Government System.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2019). Presidential Regulation No. 39 of 2019 concerning One Data Indonesia.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Regulation of the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 5 of 2020 concerning guidelines for electronic-based government system risk management.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2022). Presidential Regulation No. 132 of 2022 concerning the National Electronic-Based Government System Architecture.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2023a). Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2023 concerning acceleration of digital transformation and integration of national digital services.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (2023b). Regulation of the Minister of Communication and Informatics No. 1 of 2023 concerning data interoperability in the implementation of the Electronic-Based Government System and One Data Indonesia.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management—Guidelines.
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493
Klievink, B., Romijn, B.-J., Cunningham, S., & de Bruijn, H. (2017). Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers, 19, 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9686-2
Lingga Regency Government. (2022). Lingga Regent Regulation No. 45 of 2022 concerning the position, organizational structure, duties, functions, and work procedures of the Lingga Regency Fisheries Office.
Lingga Regency Government. (2024). Government Agency Performance Report (LKjIP) of the Lingga Regency Fisheries Office 2024. Lingga Regency Fisheries Office.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 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.
Moser-Plautz, B., & Schmidthuber, L. (2023). Digital government transformation as an organizational response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Information Quarterly, 40(3), 101815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101815
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2018). Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity (Version 1.1). U.S. Department of Commerce.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on digital government strategies. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). The path to becoming a data-driven public sector. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en
Saldanha, D. M. F., Dias, C. N., & Guillaumon, S. (2022). Transparency and accountability in digital public services: Learning from the Brazilian cases. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101680
Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010
Szczepaniuk, E. K., Szczepaniuk, H., Rokicki, T., & Klepacki, B. (2020). Information security assessment in public administration. Computers & Security, 90, 101709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.101709
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation model of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
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
Wang, C., Medaglia, R., & Zheng, L. (2018). Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.003
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector—Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kurnia Ananda Putri, Kamaruddin Kamaruddin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
