Public service innovation model in Indonesia: a case study of Kolaka regency, Southeast Sulawesi

Chia sẻ: Nguyễn Thảo | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:13

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

17
lượt xem 3
download

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Innovation in the field of state administration is essentially the development of best practices or applications of institutions, apparatus, governance, and public services to improve systems to provide added value.

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Public service innovation model in Indonesia: a case study of Kolaka regency, Southeast Sulawesi

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 1837–1849, Article ID: IJMET_10_03_186 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3 ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed PUBLIC SERVICE INNOVATION MODEL IN INDONESIA: A CASE STUDY OF KOLAKA REGENCY, SOUTHEAST SULAWESI Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Indonesia Udin Udin* Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia * Corresponding Author ABSTRACT Innovation in the field of state administration is essentially the development of best practices or applications of institutions, apparatus, governance, and public services to improve systems to provide added value. Innovation is needed to accelerate the modernization or reform the effective, responsive and accountable state administration. Public service innovation in Kolaka regency, Southeast Sulawesi Province - Indonesia places more emphasis on the vision of innovation in governance, commitment to changes, rewards for innovators, innovation drivers, innovative human resource capability, human resource awareness of innovation, develop3ment innovative human resources, budget support for public service innovation, optimization of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to support innovation, and the use of information technology in work systems. Key words: Innovation, Public Service Cite this Article: Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin, Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(3), 2019, pp. 1837–1849. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3 1. INTRODUCTION Public services have a very important role related to the public interest, even the interests of the people as a whole. Services can be said as the key to the success of various service businesses. According to Mahmudi (2007), public services are all service activities carried out by public service providers as an effort to fulfill public needs. The amount of public demand for the government to continue the improvement of service quality is felt as a very urgent need. Functionally, the implementation of public services is a form of government obligation to society. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1837 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi The government system is regulated in Law No. 32 of 2004 undergoing revisions to the Second Amendment to the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 of 2008 concerning Amendments to Regional Government. Local governments are given the authority to organize their own government to more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the society. In granting authority to the regions, especially to the regency / city, government refers to the principle of regional autonomy. Regions are given the authority to manage and regulate the affairs. As Elmi stated in Khusaini (2002) that decentralization means giving part of the authority of the central government to the regions to carry out and settle matters that are the responsibility and concern the interests of the region. The authority possessed by the regions is to make regional policies to provide public services, increase roles, initiatives and community empowerment aimed at improving people's welfare. Referring to the purpose of the public service law (No. 25 of 2009), the implementation of public services must know their obligations and responsibilities for activities involving services to the public. In realizing public services, the most important aspect is the movement to implement bureaucratic reform with the aim of achieving good governance. Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia places a priority on bureaucratic rationalization in order to create effectiveness and productivity through a comparable division of labor, which measured by the ratio between task load and the amount of resources accompanied by formalistic work procedures and close supervision. The objective of the Indonesian bureaucracy reform policy is to develop the attitude of the apparatus, profiles and behavior who have integrity, productivity, high dedication, responsibility and ability to provide excellent service through changes in mindset and work culture in government management systems so that public servants are carried out the government is optimal. The results of a survey conducted by several institutions, Indonesia still needs to improve public services to face the MEA. The Political Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) places Indonesia under Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, Macau, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore with a score of 9.27 on a scale of 0-10. Meanwhile, International Finance Cooperation (IFC) in 2013 ranked Indonesia as 120th out of 180 countries. The Global Competitiveness Report Index places Indonesia ranked 34 out of 144 countries. At the ASEAN level, Indonesia is still under Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand for the Corruption Perception Index, which ranks 107 out of 175 countries. There are several factors causing the low quality of public services in Indonesia, namely the existence of a monopolistic context. In this case, because there is no competition from public service providers, there is no strong drive to increase the amount, quality and even distribution of services by the government. The government is concerned with increasing public servants but still does not show satisfactory results. People still complain about the poor quality of public services received. With the issuance of a government regulation on guidelines for evaluating the implementation of public services, regional governments make improvements to the quality of public services, especially on the performance of government officials. The policy of implementing the assessment guidelines for public service consists of 12 instruments. As public servants, the authorities are expected to provide services that are fast, cheap, comfortable, and safe as a form of accountability to the community so that good and clean governance will be realized. Accelerating the improvement of the quality of public services in the regency/ city government requires a strong commitment, creativity, innovation, and breakthrough from the mayor and all ranks to implement policies in the public services. The reality in some regions where leaders and their staff have a strong commitment in efforts to improve the quality of public services, has shown considerable progress. Meanwhile there are still many other regions http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1838 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin that have not shown progress as expected. Based on experience, the existence of competition in service units is one of the driving factors in motivating and improving the performance of these service units. Therefore to improve the quality of public services in regencys/ cities, it is deemed necessary to evaluate the performance of regency governments in the context of inter-regional competition, including in Kolaka regency. The Kolaka regency government is based on one of its missions by implementing good, efficient, clean and dignified governance. This is in line with the central government, namely creating good governance and realizing bureaucratic reform. The regional government is also expected to carry out the implementation of the Minister of Administrative Reform and Bureaucratic Reform Regulation No. 44 of 2011 concerning guidelines for assessing the implementation of regency/ city government public service. The breakthrough of the Kolaka regency government's mission is to improve the quality of public services, with the hope that services are systematically by increasing the capability of government apparatus and developing an effective, transparent, open, accountable, participatory, flexible and responsive public service system to the needs of the community. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The good governance paradigm puts pressure on government management, including public service management. The government is no longer positioned as a ruler with the nature of hierarchical relations with the community, but as a partner with a hierarchical position with other components (the private sector and society). The government is a public servant. Government agencies are collective designations which include units of ministry organizations, departments, and non-departmental government institutions. The secretariat of the highest state institutions and other government agencies, both central and regional include state-owned enterprises, state-owned legal entities, and regional-owned enterprises. According to Kotler quoted by Soesilo Zauhar (1994), service is an activity or benefit offered by a party to another that basically does not materialize and produce ownership. Moenir (2002) suggests that a public service will be carried out well and satisfactorily if supported by several criteria, namely:  Awareness of officials and officers involved  Rules that are the basis of work  Organizations that are tools and systems  Income that can meet the minimum living needs  Availability of facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the type of work  The ability and skills of the officer Based on the description, service standards need to be carried out. Public service standards are a standardized measure in the implementation of public services to adhered by providers. According to Rowland quoted by Azwar (1996), service standards are specifications of functions or objectives that must be met by a service facility so the users can get the maximum benefit from services provided. 2.2. Construction of the Public Service Innovation Model Innovation is a term and concept that has been widely discussed lately. Innovation is increasingly trusted by many parties as the key to obtaining benefits in a broad scope, ranging from individuals, communities, organizations, and countries. Innovation in the field of state administration is essentially the development of best practices or applications in institutions, apparatus, governance, and public services to create and improve systems to provide added http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1839 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi value. Innovation is needed for effective, responsive and accountable of state administrative reform. The implementation of public service innovations in Kolaka regency can be seen from several aspects as follows: 2.1.1. Input of Public Service Innovation Inputs in public service innovation in Kolaka regency include all resources such as policy, leadership and HR, equipment support and technology, material, budget, and other inputs that must be met to develop and produce regional innovations. The input in this study divides several indicators used to look at the resources currently used in public services by the Kolaka regency government. These indicators are such as vision of innovation, commitment to change, reward for innovators, innovation driving policies, HR capability innovation, HR concern for innovation, HR development innovation, budget support, CSR optimization in supporting innovation, and IT use in work systems. The vision of innovation is the commitment set by the Kolaka regency government in improving and developing public services that are more effective and efficient in administering the government. The description of the innovation vision that has been carried out by the Kolaka regency government based on the results of 65.7% of the vision of innovation in the RPJMD has been described in the work plan of all SKPDs, 20% vision of the RPJM has been described in the roadmap, action plans, strategic plans and work programs of all SKPD, and 14.3% vision of innovation and limited follow up. This shows that the description of the innovative vision of the Kolaka regency government has been described in the work program of all government official work units (SKPD). Therefore, the commitment of the regional leadership to organize an effective and efficient government in public services in Kolaka regency has been carried out. Commitment to change in the implementation of the Kolaka regency public service shows that 58.6% of regional leaders have made continuous changes, 24.3% shows that regional leaders have developed existing changes, 5.7% show that regional leaders have made changes in their entirety and 11.4% shows that regional leaders have made partial changes. Thus, it can be said that the regional leaders in Kolaka regency have committed to change public services through public service innovations within the Kolaka regency government. Reward for innovators is a form of appreciation given by the regional government to every individual and government organization that can and has made innovations in the implementation of public services in Kolaka regency. Through the provision of rewards it is expected to motivate every individual and government organization to continue to create innovations in the implementation of effective and efficient public services. The results of the study relating to rewards for innovators showed that 52.9% of awards were given only to some innovators, 12.9% of rewards were given to all innovators, 22.9% of rewards were given for development for innovators, and 11.4% none rewards given to innovators. Based on the results of the study, even though the vision of innovation and commitment to innovation already existed from the regional leadership, the regional government has not fully given awards to individuals and organizations that have produced innovations in public services within the local government. Optimizing public service innovations in Kolaka regency is carried out with the existence of regional policies to encourage effective and efficient public service innovations. The policy to encourage public service innovation in Kolaka regency shows that 58.6% have already had regional head regulations to encourage innovation in public services, 18.6% have already set up regional head regulations to encourage innovation in public services, 11.4% have already had regional head regulations. (perkada) and regional regulations (perda) to encourage innovation in public services, 5.7% have already been drafted by regional regulations (perda), and 5.7% have no policies to encourage public service innovation. Based on the results of these studies, it can be said that the policy of driving public service innovation has been in the form http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1840 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin of regional head regulations (perkada) which are used to encourage innovations related to public services within the scope of regional government. This is one form of commitment held by regional leaders for better implementation of the Kolaka regency government, especially in serving the Kolaka regency community. Innovator HR capability shows that 58.6% of Human Resources (HR) in certain work units already understand innovation, 31.4% of HR personnel in work units already understand innovation and there are still 10.0% some already understand about innovation. Related to budget support for innovation shows that 48.6% already have a budget to the stage of implementation of innovation, 28.9% already have a budget at the stage of innovation initiation and the rest there are still 22.9% of the budget until the development stage of innovation. Related to the optimization of CSR in supporting innovation shows that 48.9% of the government initiated the exploration of the company's CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), 25.7% have optimized CSR programs in limited innovation development and also 25.7% have optimized CSR programs in develop innovation widely. While the use of IT in the work system 31.4% of the work system has been supported by widespread IT use, 30.0% in the work system has been supported by IT use and towards Smart City, 24.3% of work systems have been supported by IT use and further developed and 14.3% of work systems have been supported by limited IT usage. 2.1.2. Process of Public Service Innovation It is observed from the aspect of the process, in this study dividing several indicators that are used to see the process currently carried out in public services by the Kolaka regency government. These indicators include; socialization of innovation policies, technical guidance / advocacy / program assistance, development of innovations in RPJMD, innovation programs and activities in SKPD Renstra, development of innovation networks, benchmarking to explore ideas and ideas of innovation, and utilization of benchmarking results. Socialization of innovation policy shows that there are 41.4% of the socialization of innovation policies determined by the emergence of the idea of innovation, 35.7% of the socialization of innovation policies have been scheduled for the dissemination of regional innovation policies. Then, 17.1% of the socialization of innovation policies was initiated through the planning of the agenda of activities and 5.7% of the socialization of regional innovation policies became a routine agenda to maintain the spirit of innovation. The implementation of the Bimtek / Advocacy / Mentoring Program showed that 45.7% of the Bimtek/ Advocacy / mentoring of new regional innovation programs were initiated through the planning of activity agendas, 28.6% had already been scheduled for regional innovation/ advocacy/ assistance programs and 25.7% showed that Furthermore, the results of technical guidance/ advocacy/ regional innovation assistance can be seen from the emergence and development of innovation ideas. The development of innovation in the RPJMD shows that 54.3% have already put their innovation development plan into the RPJMD on a limited basis, then 24.3% have initiated the idea of developing innovation to be included in PRJMD, 15.7% have broadly developed innovation plans into the RPJMD and the rest 5.7% have already poured an innovation development plan into the RPJMD widely and are referred to by all SKPDs. Innovation programs and activities in the SKPD Strategic Plan shows that 54.3% have already poured innovation development plans into the RPJMD on a limited basis, then 24.3% have initiated innovation development ideas to be included in the PRJMD, 15.7% have poured plans to develop innovations into the RPJMD wide and the remaining 5.7% has already poured an innovation development plan into the RPJMD widely and is referred to by all SKPDs. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1841 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi Development of the innovation network shows that 57.1% of local governments initiated the formation of networks in the context of developing local government innovations, 22.9% of LGs have formed networks in order to develop government innovations widely and 20.0% of LGs have formed networks in order to develop government innovations with several stakeholders. Digging ideas benchmarking and innovation ideas shows that 52.9% have had a benchmarking plan to other innovative regions / countries, 25.7% have conducted extensive benchmarking in other innovative regions / countries, 15.7% have limited bencmarking. to other regions / countries that are innovative and 5.7% have done bencmarking to other regions / countries that are innovative and benefit from the results of the bencmarking. Utilization of benchmarking results shows that 58.9% already have plans for utilizing benchmarking results for regional innovation development, 21.4% have utilized the benchmarking results for regional innovation development broadly and 20.0% utilize the results of benchmarking for the development of limited regional innovations. 2.1.3. Output of Public Service Innovation Output is a direct result of the implementation of regional government programs and innovation activities in terms of number and type and various performance achievements (quantity, quality, percentage and efficiency). This study divides several indicators that are used to see the process currently being carried out in public services of Kolaka regency government. These indicators include; the number of innovations produced, types of innovations, quality of innovations, operational technical guidelines for regional government innovations, institutionalization of innovations, availability of public service information systems, resolution of complaints services, achievement of community satisfaction surveys, increase in licensing, per capita income, employment, investment, reducing poverty, increasing PAD, transparency in governance, level of stakeholder participation, BPK opinion on financial reports, LAKIP achievement scores, efficiency in government administration, and increasing HDI values. The number of innovations produced showed that 65.7% were more than 3 innovations. 30% the number of innovations produced namely 3 innovations and 4.3% the number of innovations produced, namely 2 innovations. The types of innovations produced showed that there were 70.0% in accordance with more than 3 priority programs, 22.1% to 3 priority programs and 2.9% to the 2 priority programs. The quality of the innovations produced shows that there are 41.4% adaptations to the innovations produced. 31.4% modifications to the innovations produced, 17.1% new discoveries on innovations produced and 10.0% adoption of innovations produced. The operational technical guidelines for innovation show that only 55.7% had technical guidance, 14.3% had innovation guidelines, then 7.1% had technical guidelines and guidelines, and 5.7% had no technical guidelines. The dimensions of institutionalization of innovation show that 38.6% have additional functions in institutionalization, 35.7% have Pokja across SKPD, then 14.3% have Pokja across units, then 5.7% have institutionalized structures and functions and 5.7% do not yet exist institutionalization of innovation. The availability of public service information systems shows that 55.7% are available and accessible to the public, 32.9% are available and are representative of the availability of public service information systems and there are 11.4% which state that there is and sufficient availability of public service information systems. At the completion of the complaints service, 51.4% responded but the follow-up was slow in completing the complaints service, then 31.4% had a response and follow-up was still only the complainants and recipients of complaints in the settlement of complaints services, and 17.1% had responses and has been published in the settlement of the complaints service. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1842 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin The level of achievement of the results of the community satisfaction survey shows that 64.3% includes the high level of achievement of the results of the community satisfaction survey, 30.0%, quite a high level of achievement of the results of the community satisfaction survey, and 5.7 a very high level of community satisfaction survey results. On increasing the number of permits, 50.0% increased the number of permits ranged from 67-100%, 41.4% increased the number of licenses ranged from 34-66% and 8.6% there was an increase in the number of licenses ranging from 1-33%. In the aspect of increasing per capita income, it shows that 60.0% has an increase in per capita income ranging from 34-66%. 28.6 there is an increase in per capita income ranging from 67-100% and 11.4% there is an increase in per capita income of more than 100%. Related to the increase in employment, it shows that 51.4% more than 100% increase in employment, 35.7%, 67-100% increase in employment, and 12.9% 34-66% increase in employment. 2.1.4. Outcome of Public Service Innovation The outcome dimension is a real condition whether the various outputs has been produced from the innovation program and activities to provide benefits and satisfaction to the community. Regarding the outcome, this study can be divided into several indicators that can be used to see the results of public services in Kolaka regency government. These indicators include; availability of service information, ease of service process, system reliability, service speed, benefit of innovation, relevance of innovation with regional priority programs, level of service satisfaction. In relation to the availability of Information Services shows that 51.4% are available and there is sufficient availability of information on services, 22.9% are available and represent the availability of information services, 17.1% are available but there is still little related to the availability of information services and 8.6% available and accessible to the wider community regarding the availability of service information. Therefore, the ease of service process shows 41.4% that it is not easy to process services, there are 40.0% easy enough in the service process, and 18.6% are easy in the service process. The reliability of the Service System shows that 57.1% is quite reliable in the service system, then 25.7% is not reliable in the service system and 8.6% are reliable and very reliable in the service system. Thus the speed of service shows that 67.1% service speed includes slow, then there are 24.3% fast enough in terms of service and 8.6% fast in terms of service. The use of innovation shows that 48.6% of the benefits of innovation are beneficial, 37.1% of the benefits of innovation are useful and 14.3% are very useful. The relevance of innovation with regional priority programs shows that 50.0% is said to be relevant between innovation and regional priority programs, 40.0% is quite relevant between innovation and regional priority programs, and 10.0% is irrelevant between innovation and regional priority programs. This shows the level of service satisfaction that 62.9% level of service satisfaction is quite high, 21.4% level of service satisfaction is low, and 15.7% level of service satisfaction is high. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Calculation of the Public Service Innovation Index The scope of the regional government innovation index includes dimensions and indicators. Dimensions are the main part or aspect or variable that gives the value of the innovation coverage of the Kolaka regency government. Determination of dimensions is based on management aspects of innovation performance that includes inputs, processes, outputs and benefits of innovations that have been implemented. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1843 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi The formula used to measure the innovation index of public services in Kolaka regency is as follows: i = 2(2Sx1 + 2S x2 + 2,5Sx3 + 3,5Sx4) Note: Sx1 = input dimension score (20%); Sx2 = process dimension score (20%) Sx3 = output dimension score (25%); Sx4 = outcome score dimension (35%) In reducing the public service innovation index in Kolaka Regency, researchers used the aspects described in the previous section. These aspects cover input, process, output, and outcomes (benefits). Calculation is done by entering the average value of each question indicator from the four aspects that have been obtained from the distribution of instruments to all respondents. The input aspect consists of 10 indicators include vision of innovation, commitment to change, reward for innovators, innovation driving policies, HR capability innovation, HR concern for innovation, HR development innovation, budget support, optimization of CSR in supporting innovation, and use of IT in work systems. The input aspect formula is as follows: 1 Sx1 = (Sx1.1 + Sx1.2 … … … … + Sx1.10) 10 Note: Sx1.1 = Innovation of vision; Sx1.2 = Commitment to change; Sx1.3 = Rewards for innovators Sx1.4 = Belief in innovation drivers; Sx1.5 = Innovation HR capability; Sx1.6 = HR concern for innovation; Sx1.7 = Development of HR; Sx1.8 = Budget support Sx1.9 = Optimizing CSR in supporting innovation; Sx1.10 = Use of IT in the work system The process aspect consists of 7 indicators include socialization of innovation policies, technical guidance/ advocacy/ program assistance, development of innovations in the RPJMD, innovation programs and activities in the SKPD Renstra, development of innovation networks, benchmarking to explore ideas and ideas of innovation, and utilization of benchmarking results. The aspect process formula is as follows: 1 Sx2 = (Sx2.1 + Sx2.2 … … … … + Sx2.7) 7 Note: Sx2.1 = Innovation policy socialization; Sx2.2 = Bimtek / advocation / mentoring Sx2.3 = RPJMD innovation development program Sx2.4 = Innovative programs and activities at the SKPD strategic plan; Sx2.5 = Innovation network development Sx2.6 = Benchmarking explores ideas and ideas of innovation; Sx2.7 = Use of benchmarking results Output aspects consist of 20 indicators include the number of innovations produced, types of innovations produced, quality of innovations, operational technical guidelines for regional government innovations, institutionalization of innovations, availability of public service information systems, resolution of complaints services, achievement of community satisfaction surveys (SKM), increase in licensing, increase in per capita income, increasing employment, increasing investment, reducing poverty, increasing PAD, transparency in governance, level of stakeholder participation, BPK opinion on financial reports, LAKIP achievement scores, efficiency in government administration, and increasing HDI values. The output aspect formula is as follows: http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1844 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin 1 Sx3 = (Sx3.1 + Sx3.2 … … … … + Sx3.20) 20 Note: Sx3.1 = Amount of innovation produced; Sx3.2 = Type of innovation produced Sx3.3 = Quality of innovation; Sx3.4 = Innovation driving policy Sx3.5 = Institutionalization of innovation; Sx3.6 = Availability of service information Sx3.7 = Complaint service completion; Sx3.8 = Level of public service satisfaction Sx3.9 = Increase in number of permissions; Sx3.10 = Percentage income increase Sx3.11 = Increased employment; Sx3.12 = Investment increase Sx3.13 = Decrease in poverty rate; Sx3.14 = Increase in PAD Sx3.15 = Transparency in organizing government; Sx3.16 = Stakeholder participation level Sx3.17 = BPK opinion against financial statements; Sx3.18 = LAKIP achievement value Sx3.19 = Government organizing efficiency; Sx3.20 = Increased HDI value The outcomes aspects (benefits) consist of 7 indicators include availability of service information, ease of service process, system reliability, service speed, benefit of innovation, relevance of innovation with regional priority programs, level of service satisfaction. The following aspect outcomes formula: 1 Sx4 = (Sx4.1 + Sx4.2 … … … … + Sx4.7) 7 Note: Sx4.1 = Availability of service information; Sx4.2 = Ease of service process Sx4.3 = System reliability; Sx4.4 = Service speed; Sx4.5 = Innovation benefits Sx4.6 = Relevance of innovation with regional priority programs; Sx4.7 = Service satisfaction level Local government innovation index achievement values are categorized into 5: 20,00 – 35,99 = Very low 36,00 – 51,99 = Low 52,00 – 67,99 = Enough 68,00 – 83,99 = Good 84,00 – 100,00= Very good Table 1 Calculation of the Input Aspects No. Indicators (20%) Mean Score 1 Innovation Vision 4,5 2 Commitment to Change 4,3 3 Reward for Innovators 2,5 4 Driving Innovation Policy 3,0 5 Innovation HR Capability 3,2 6 HR Concern for Innovation 2,9 http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1845 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi 7 HR Development Innovation 3,6 8 Budget Support 2,9 9 Optimizing CSR in Supporting Innovation 2,8 10 IT Use in Work Systems 3,7 Total 33,4 Value of Input Aspect 3,3 Table 2 Calculation of Process Aspects No. Indicators (20%) Mean Score 1 Socialization of Innovation Policy 3,4 2 Bimtek / advocacy / mentoring program 2,8 3 Innovation Development Program in RPJMD 3,0 4 Innovation Programs & Activities in SKPD Renstra 3,2 5 Development of the Innovation Network 2,7 6 Exploring Idea Benchmarking & Innovation Ideas 2,8 7 Utilization of Benchmarking Results 2,6 Total 20,5 Value of Process Aspect 2,9 Table 3 Calculation of Output Aspects No. Indicators (25%) Mean Score 1 Number of Innovations Produced 4,6 2 Number of Innovations Produced 4,7 3 Quality of Innovation 3,6 4 Regional Innovation Technical Guidelines 2,7 5 Institutionalization of Innovation 3,2 6 Availability of Service Information 4,4 7 Complaint Service Completion 3,7 8 Level of Public Service Satisfaction 3,8 9 Increased Number of Licenses 3,4 10 Per capita income increase 3,5 11 Increased Employment 4,4 12 Investment Increase 3,6 13 Decrease in Poverty Rate 3,6 14 Increased PAD 3,5 15 Transparent in Organizing Government 4,0 16 Stakeholders' Participation Rate 3,0 17 BPK Opinion Against the Financial Report 4,0 18 LAKIP Achievement Value 3,0 19 Government Organizing Efficiency 3,8 20 Increased HDI Value 3,7 Total 74,2 Value of Output Aspect 3,7 Table 4 Calculation of Outcome Aspects No. Indicators (35%) Mean Score 1 Availability of Service Information 3,2 2 Ease of Service Poses 2,8 3 System Reliability 3,0 4 Service Speed 2,4 5 Benefits of Innovation 3,3 6 Relevance of Innovation with Regional Priority Programs 3,4 http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1846 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin 7 Service Satisfaction Level 2,9 Total 21,1 Value of Outcome Aspect 3,0 Based on the values of the input, process, output, and outcomes aspects of public service innovation using the formula: i = 2(2Sx1 + 2S x2 + 2,5Sx3 + 3,5Sx4) The public service innovation index results are obtained as follows: i = 2(2 ∗ 3 + 2 ∗ 2,9 + 2,5 ∗ 3,7 + 3,5 ∗ 3) i = 2(32,15), Innovation Index = 64,3 The result of the public service innovation index calculation is 64.3%. Based on the assessment, the innovation of public services in Kolaka regency is good criteria. 4. DISCUSSION In order to improve public services effectively and efficiently in Kolaka regency, a model for developing public service innovations is needed that can overcome all the obstacles that have been encountered in public services. The problem that has been encountered so far in public services in Kolaka regency is; public service policies, leadership and HR, support for equipment and technology (IT), material, budget (funds). For this reason, strengthening of policy needs, capability of individuals in utilizing information technology and budget support develop the capability of local government apparatus and developing information technology to maximize innovation in public services in Kolaka regency. Through the strengthening of service innovation policies in Kolaka regency to improve human resources in local government apparatus and increase the innovation budget, it will create efficient utilization of information technology in public services in Kolaka regency. Increasing the human resources of the regional apparatus carried out through training such as technology guidance, advocacy, assistance and giving rewards are expected to create regional government apparatuses who will master information technology and create service innovations with service system reliability, information service expansion, service convenience and speed of service. In order for the innovations to be carried out to continue and develop public services, the Kolaka regency government must continue to pay attention to and continue to improve aspects which are indicators of an increase in the public service innovation index, namely; aspects of input, process, output, and outcomes (benefits). Based on the results on service innovation models on SKPD in Kolaka regency, it still has to improve the input, process, output and outcomes (benefits) aspects of service in providing services to the community. For this reason, this study attempts to provide an efficient and effective model of public service to be applied to each SKPD in Kolaka regency. Based on the results of the study it was found that the input aspects of each SKPD in Kolaka regency were quite good at the level of policies and rules that had encouraged and motivated local government officials in each SKPD to carry out optimal public services to the Kolaka regency community through innovations public service. Whereas for the process aspect in public service innovation, the Kolaka regency local government still needs to improve the innovation policy publication policies at each SKPD in Kolaka regency. In addition, trainings to improve the quality of Human Resources (HR) such as technology guidance, guidance on advocacy for public service innovations, assistance in innovating public services and providing rewards for government apparatus that make the latest innovations in public services in each SKPD. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1847 editor@iaeme.com
Public Service Innovation Model in Indonesia: A Case Study of Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi 5. CONCLUSION Based on the results, the conclusions generated from this study are as follows:  The Kolaka regency government has a commitment and vision to carry out public service innovation. Well in aspect of input, process, output, and benefits from the implementation of public service innovation. However, policy strengthening is still needed to take place on an ongoing basis.  The invasion index of public services in Kolaka regency is 64.3. Based on the innovation assessment standards established by the State Administration Agency (LAN), the criteria are good. For the model of innovation is needed to reinforcement policies through local regulation to optimize the capability of local government officials as well as the budget for the use of technology related to innovations in public service. RECOMMENDATION This study offers some recommendations are as follows:  It is necessary to increase the indicators of all aspects of input, process, output, and benefits to do public services innovation in Kolaka regency.  A bureaucratic reform index study is needed to measure the optimization of regional government to see the effectiveness and efficiency of government organizations in Kolaka regency. REFERENCES [1] Abbas. (2010). Strategi dan Pilihan Mengajar Berbasis Sekolah. Jakarta: Grasindo. [2] Akbar, A. B., Udin, Wahyudi, S., & Djastuti, I. (2018). Spiritual Leadership and Employee Performance: Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment in Indonesian Public University. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 13(12), 4344-4352. [3] Astuti, Siti Irene D. (2011). Desentralisasi dan Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pendidikan. Yogyakarta. Pustaka Belajar [4] Azwar, Azrul. (1996). Pengantar Administrasi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Bina Rupa Aksara. [5] Bakhri, S., Udin, Daryono, & Suharnomo. (2018). Diversity Management And Organizational Culture: Literature Review, Theoretical Perspectives, And Future Directions. International Journal Of Civil Engineering And Technology, 9(1), 172-178. [6] Cheryl Simrel King & Camilla Stivers (eds.). (1998). Government Is Us: Public Administration in An Anti-Government Era Sage Publications. California. [7] David Beetham. (1993). Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Democratisation in David Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West. Polity Press. Cambridge. [8] Djalal, Fasli & Supriad, Dedi (eds). (2001). Reformasi Pendidikan dalam Konteks Otonomi Daerah. Yogyakarta: Adicitra Karya Nusa. [9] Drucker, P.F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneuship: Practice and Principles. Heinneman: London. [10] Gie, The Liang. (2000). Administrasi Perkantoran. Yokyakarta : Modern Liberty [11] Halvorsen, Thomas. (2005). On The Differences between Public and Private Sector innovation. Publin Report, Oslo. [12] Handayani, S., Udin, Suharnomo, Yuniawan, A., Wahyudi, S., & Wikaningrum, T. (2017). A Systematic Literature Review of Managing Workplace Diversity for Sustaining Organizational Competitive Advantage. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(12), 398–406. [13] Hetifah Sj. Sumarto. (2012). Inovasi, Partisipasi, dan Good Governance. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1848 editor@iaeme.com
Abdul Kadir, La Ode Muhamad Umran, Harnina Ridwan, Samiruddin T and Udin Udin [14] Khusaini. (2006). Ekonomi Publik Desentralisasi Fiskal dan Pembangunan Daerah. Malang :BPFE Unibraw. [15] Kriyantono, Rachmat. (2006). Teknik Praktis Riset Komunikasi. Jakarta: Kencana. [16] Keputusan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara Nomor 63 Tahun 2003 Tentang Prinsip-prinsip Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan. [17] Mahmudi. (2007). Manajemen Sektor Publik. Yogyakarta : Unit Penerbit dan Percetakan Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen YKPN. [18] Moenir. (2002). Manajemen Pelayanan Umum, PT Bumi aksara. Jakarta. [19] Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. (2015). Peraturan Ombudsman Republik Indonesia Nomor 17 Tahun 2015 tentang Penelitian Kepatuhan Terhadap Standar Pelayanan Publik. Ombudsman RI. Jakarta. [20] Presiden Republik Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 tentang Pelayanan Publik. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2009 nomor 112. [21] Poerwadarminta. W.J.S. (2003). Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta : Balai Pustaka. [22] Sangkala. (2014). Innovative Governance Konsep Dan Aplikasi. Surabaya:Capuya. [23] Shahab, A., Sobari, A., & Udin, U. (2019). Empowering Leadership and OCB: The Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Emotional Intelligence. Wseas transactions on business and economics, 16, 97-106. [24] Shahab, M. A., Sobari, A., & Udin, U. (2018). Empowering Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Emotional Intelligence in Medical Service Industry. International Journal of Economics & Business Administration, 6(3), 80-91. [25] Soeryono, Agus. (2001). Budaya Birokrasi Pelayanan Publik. Jurnal Administrasi Negara. [26] Sulistiyani, E., Udin, & Rahardja, E. (2018). Examining the effect of transformational leadership, extrinsic reward, and knowledge sharing on creative performance of Indonesian SMEs. Quality - Access to Success, 19(167), 63-67. [27] Wasistiono, S. (2009). Paradigma Pelayanan Publik pada Era Desentralisasi di Indonesia. IPDN. Bandung. [28] Zauhar, Soesilo. (1994). Kualitas Pelayanan Publik Suatu Paparan Teoritis. Majalah Administrasi edisi 2. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1849 editor@iaeme.com