51
Another feature that is developed is Policy Opinion. Currently, this feature is available via website and SMS. It aims to collect public opinion about the policies that will be
issued by government in the form of survey. The survey is sent to the targeted users based on the topic that is relevant to their interest by using data mining technique. For
example, UKP4 set issue regarding the planning to implement new education curriculum to adjust the current education practice. Users who are interested on
educational issue, such as those who have sent inputs related to educational topic before, are invited to give their opinion by sending SMS including the issue code.
4.4 Respondents’ Demographic
As seen in Table 10, the questionnaire results show the demographic distribution of the respondents where 85.6 of respondents are male and 14.4 are female. Most of the
respondents about 51.7 are from 31 to 45 years old and the majority has education of undergraduate 59.3. The respondents are mostly located in Java with 85.6
followed by Sumatera and Sulawesi with 5.9 each then Kalimantan with 1.7 and Nusa Tenggara-Bali with 0.9. The respondents work in various occupations: 46.6
work in private sector, 16.1 work as public official, 8.5 are student, and 28.8 work as social or religious activist, entrepreneur, unemployed, etc. Most of them have
monthly salary from 1 to 7 million 55.1. As for respondents’ experience in using online or SMS-based e-government, 59.3 of
them just have used it for the past year. This also applies to the experience of using
LAPOR where 80.5 of the respondents have just used it for one year. Furthermore, only 10.2 of them who regularly use LAPOR to report issues related to national
development or public services and only 4.2 who regularly provide aspirationidea related to government policy. The majority use LAPOR at least once until now to
provide complaint or idea to government.
52
Table 10 Respondents Demographic
53
4.5 LAPOR Success in Encouraging Participation 4.5.1 Descriptive Statistics
The results of LAPOR success assessment are shown in the form of mean and standard deviation see Table 11 and enriched by interview results as triangulation
.
Table 11 LAPOR Success Measurement Results
54
As depicted in Table 11, the overall success has score 4.28 and all dimensions have mean scores greater than 4.0 where SQ dimension 4.44 has the greatest score and US
dimension 4.16 has the least score. In view of indicators, there are two indicators that has mean scores below 4.0 which are UIU1 3.68 and SvQ3 3.83 while SQ1 and
SvQ1 have the highest score with 4.73 each. As for the spread of data, all of them are not too disperse from the mean which shows that, on average, the individual responses
are just slightly over one point away from mean. Even though all of the scale point can be found in the questionnaire results, the majority answers are still around the mean.
System Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for system quality is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 7 System Quality
As seen above, the majority of respondents state their agreement to all indicators representing System Quality dimension. Looking at the high-agreement-
scale scale ‘5- 6’, it suggests that LAPOR system is considered good particularly for Ease of Use
86, Friendliness 77, and Functionality 75 indicators. However, according to some
users, LAPOR system still lacks on Feedback Mechanism 28, Response Time 27, and System Reliability 25 shown by th
e responses from scale ‘1-3’.
3 3
3 4
3 8
4 2
2 3
3 4
1 3
12 11
19 9
14 18
21 15
25 35
42 22
28 37
61 60
43 45
57 47
42 25
17 15
15 18
16 11
20 40
60 80
100 120
140
Ease of use Friendliness System
Reliability Security Functionality Response
time Feedback
mechanism Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2
Quite Disagree 3 Quite Agree 4
Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6
55
In view of this, some of respondents stressed about the unclear, rigid, and normative feedback mechanism. A respondent also commented about unsynchronised SMS short
number for complaint and follow-up. Furthermore, some respondents said that they found access difficulty and system error while accessing the system. There is also
security issue where a respondent mentioned that he got problem after he reported wrongdoing happened in his working place.
According to LAPOR interviewees, access difficulty issues may be caused by abundant users who accessed the system at the same time, poor signal from the mobile phone in
particular regions, or poor service from telecommunication provider. As for the security issue, LAPOR has made mechanism to protect user securityprivacy where user
identification is not given to the related institution for follow-up. For the comment about feedback mechanism, it is actually the official mechanism where two different number
for first complaint and its follow-up.
Information Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for information quality is illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 8 Information Quality
As depicted above, most of respondents state their agreement to all indicators representing Information Quality dimension. According to respondents, LAPOR
system produces accurate, up-to-date, and sufficient information to users shown by
3 1
3 3
7 11
13 13
16 15
16 25
26 26
21 21
51 49
52 42
15 16
13 14
20 40
60 80
100 120
140
Accuracy Up-to-date
currency Sufficiency
Timeliness Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2
Quite Disagree 3 Quite Agree 4
Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6
56
many agreement responses for those indicators. However, majority think that LAPOR still does not provide information in timely manner characterised by many disagreement
responses scale ‘1-3’ for Timeliness indicator 41.
As mentioned by some respondents, the accuracy of the message they sent sometimes different from what they intended to say. The content revision by LAPOR administrator
before being published is considered eliminate the real meaning of the message. LAPOR interviewees explained that the content revision is intended to make the
message clearer for other people since many messages are incomplete, unclear, or even using local language. There is a complaint mechanism if the message is considered out
of its real meaning but not many citizens know. As for timeliness, LAPOR interviewees explained that in time information delivery depends on the related institutions being
consulted since LAPOR is only an intermediary. Furthermore, as already mentioned in previous section, personal data security is also the issue that needs extra attention.
Service Quality
The responses distribution from respondents for service quality is depicted in Figure 10.
Figure 9 Service Quality
As illustrated above, most of respondents state their agreement to all indicators representing Service Quality dimension. Among other indicators, respondents show
most agreements for the readiness of LAPOR to help citizens who want to report
2 6
10 7
4 4
9 16
10 5
9 15
18 19
21 21
21 27
22 24
55 49
34 46
42 27
18 13
14 22
20 40
60 80
100 120
140
Tangible Service
reliability Responsiveness
Assurance Empathy
Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2 Quite Disagree 3
Quite Agree 4 Agree 5
Strongly Agree 6
57
problems or provide aspirations for government, shown by high agreement scale ‘5-6’
on Tangible 82 indicator. However, LAPOR is still considered having poor responsiveness shown by the disagreement responses for responsiveness indicator 44.
As mentioned by many respondents, the responses from government are slow or even not given. LAPOR team clarified that LAPOR is like an intermediary public centre
which receives input from citizen then forwards it to the concerned institutions. Thus, the response slowness is because some related government institutions do not have good
commitment for this initiative. Furthermore, there is also possibility of rare cases where immediate response cannot be attained.
User Satisfaction The responses distribution of respondents for user satisfaction is shown below.
Figure 10 User Satisfaction
As illustrated in Figure 11, all indicators representing User Satisfaction dimension have almost the same score. Most of respondents are satisfied with LAPOR particularly
because it fulfills users’ participation and interaction needs with government, shown by many ‘Strongly Agree’ responses for those indicators. On the other hand, Overall
Satisfaction only has slightly different score which means that the majority is satisfied
with LAPOR even though there are 35 respondents who are not satisfied with LAPOR
10 8
10 7
7 9
12 13
16 29
28 27
42 43
43 18
19 13
20 40
60 80
100 120
140
Interaction needs fulfilment
Participation needs fulfilment
Overall satisfaction Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree 2
Quite Disagree 3 Quite Agree 4
Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6
58
According to LAPOR interviewees, on May 2013 LAPOR has 22,954 users and 62,527 reports. However, as of August 2014 it has 257,013 users and 525.177 reports
and, among those, there are around 43 of users who provided inputs twice where their inputs have been approved and forwarded to the relevant government institutions. These
high increment rates of users and reports recorded in the system can direct to the assumption of increasing participation by the citizens only in a year. There are also
5,398 likes and 2,779 comments which can be assumed that the interaction needs to government, or even with other citizens, are facilitated by LAPOR Despite of some
satisfaction comments, some respondents also declared their unsatisfaction towards LAPOR, particularly related to poor responses and follow-up from the government
institutions, technical problems e.g. error, ‘heavy’ application, and securityprivacy issues.
UseIntention to Continual Use
The responses distribution from respondents for useintention to continual usage is
shown below.
Figure 11 UseIntention to Continual Use
As illustrated in Figure 12, most of respondents especially state their agreement scale ‘4-6’ to Intention to Recommendation 101 and Intention to Continual Use 99
indicators where only 12 respondents who will not recommend andor continue to use
11 5
5 11
14 7
7 10
22 7
5 8
34 23
19 29
29 49
50 40
8 27
32 20
20 40
60 80
100 120
140
Frequency of access Intention to continual use
Intention to recommendation
Dependency Strongly Disagree Disagree
Quite Disagree Quite Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
59
LAPOR However, until the study been taken place, the frequency of use of LAPOR is not as high as expected, proven by highest disagreement score scale ‘1-3’ for
Frequency of Access 47.
Some respondents gave positive comments about LAPOR and said they will keep using LAPOR to provide input to government and recommend it to other people. Many of
them also suggested massive socialisation to wider citizens so that LAPOR adoption can be increased. However, there are few respondents who are disappointed and will not
use it anymore, particularly because their inputs are slow or not responded by the related government institutions. A respondent even said prefer to just directly contact the
concerned government institution via its channel. Furthermore, there is also issue of privacy leakage and performance problems which cause them unsure about the continual
usage.
4.5.2 Spearman Correlation
In order to see how quality dimensions are correlated with user satisfaction and usecontinual usage, the result of Spearman correlation is presented in Table 12.
Table 12 Spearman Correlation Result
As seen above, the correlation coefficient of SQ-UIU and SQ-US is 0.655 and 0.725,
respectively. It suggests that there is a positive correlation for SQ-UIU and SQ-US relationship, where increasing value of system quality associates to the increasing value
of useintention to continual use and user satisfaction. Both values of ρ
also indicate that
60
SQ-UIU and SQ-US have a strong relationship where SQ-US has stronger relationship than SQ-UIU.
The correlation coefficient of IQ-UIU and IQ-US is 0.469 and 0.690, respectively. It suggests that there is a positive correlation for IQ-UIU and IQ-US relationship, where
increasing value of information quality corresponds to the increasing value of useintention to continual use as well as user satisfaction. However, the value of
ρ for
IQ-UIU is lower than that for IQ-US. It indicates that IQ-UIU has a moderate relationship while IQ-US has a strong relationship.
As summarised above, the correlation coefficient of SvQ-UIU and SvQ-US is 0.573 and 0.821, respectively. It suggests that there is a positive correlation between SvQ and UIU
as well as between SvQ and US, where increasing value of service quality associates with the increasing value of useintention to continual use and user satisfaction. The
value of ρ
for both relationships implies that SvQ-UIU have a moderate relationship while SvQ-UIU has a very strong relationship.
In order to see how user satisfaction is correlated with usecontinual usage which are suggested as further participation expectation, the result of Spearman correlation is also
presented. The correlation coefficient of 0.655 suggests that there is a positive correlation between SQ and UIU, where increasing value of user satisfaction associates
with the increasing value of usecontinual use. Furthermore, the value of ρ
indicates that both dimensions have a strong relationship.
4.6 Citizens Perceived Benefits This section presents the findings of
citizens’ perceived benefits from questionnaire, which was enriched by some comments from respondents and confirmation of intended
benefits from LAPOR team.
61
Table 13 Citizens Perceived Benefits Results
As seen in Table 13, the benefit dimension that has the highest score is Convenience 4.95. It suggests that the majority of respondents agree, also firmed by small standard
deviation, that they can get benefits from the convenience of m-government which allows them to report problemsaspirations anywhere and anytime CV2 and CV1. A
respondent stated, “According to my experience, the important benefit of LAPOR is the
convenience for reporting problems related to services involving bureaucracy. ”
Furthermore, there are also benefits in terms of Cost 4.81 and Time 4.72, particularly providing cost savings and enabling them to avoid directly dealing with public officials
62
and providing time saving TM3 and TM1 as comment from a respondent, “I think it is
very useful since it can save my time and money ...”
This benefit is also confirmed by LAPOR interviewees saying that there are cost savings for citizens because of LAPOR, such as cost spent to come to the government
complaint service. Furthermore, since LAPOR team provides their own infrastructure for SMS-based service, the cost spent for one SMS can be reduced until Rp250SMS
where normally Rp2000SMS via content providers. However, the result also shows that there is no significant benefit in terms of quicker response time compare to other means.
In view of this, LAPOR team explained that the response fully depends on the institution being consulted by the citizen. They said that not all institutions have good
performance in responding the reports. As for Communication dimension, it results quite high score 4.76, particularly for
CM1 but not CM2, which suggests that LAPOR provides an efficient but not quite effective way to communicate with government. Some of respondents also underlined
this by saying that LAPOR is only beneficial for efficient communication, particularly for accommodating inputs, but not effective to finalise the problems. As from LAPOR
interviewees’ perspective, they said that LAPOR is indeed advantageous to facilitate government-citizens interaction.
Next, for Participate in Decision Making dimension, LAPOR gives benefits for citizens to have their say about issues around governmental activities and lifting their feeling of
having role in active democracy but not to be listened and consulted by government. It is showed by high score for PDM1 and PDM2 but not PDM3 and PDM4. This
participation benefit is confirmed by LAPOR interviewees. Some respondents also said,
“It is very helpful in supervising and providing inputs to government and public services
” and “Never be consulted, even my idea is not implemented.” Personalisation dimension has an overall score below overall mean 4.65 but P2
indicator 4.75 which suggests that the majority of respondent value the personalized services offered by LAPOR On the other hand, P1 indicator has score below overall
mean 4.54 which implies that the majority are unable to personalise the services.
63
On the other hand, the benefit with the lowest score is Trust indicator 4.62. It suggests that even though the respondents realise LAPOR focus in
citizens’ best interests, they are still not fully confident and comfortable relying on LAPOR to relay their
reportsaspirations to government and to interact via LAPOR see T3, T4, and T2. A respondent emphasised,
“LAPOR is a good initiative, but users can, on the contrary, lose confidence if there are reports that are not followed-up or responses that does not
make sense or satisfy the user from the related government institutions.”
The findings also suggest that only few respondents get benefits in terms of increased knowledge and ease of getting information, shown by
dimension and all indicators’ scores below overall mean on Well-informedness and Ease of Information Retrieval
dimension. According to the score, the benefits can be classified into: major, moderate and minor benefit as summarised in Table 14.
Table 14 Benefits Classification
4.7 Summary
