Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization:

Study Case - Bank Indonesia

Mirza Arie Andini Permana and Apol Pribadi

Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya-Indonesia

Keywords:

Project Selection, Project Prioritization, IT Project Selection, IT Project Prioritization.

Abstract:

The abstract should summarize the contents of the paper and should contain at least 70 and at most 200 words.

It should be set in 9-point font size, justiﬁed and should have a hanging indent of 2-centimenter. There should

be a space before of 12-point and after of 30-point.

1 INTRODUCTION

At present information technology (IT) is experienc-

ing very rapid development where its development is

unavoidable. The development of this information

technology, not only can help our way of life be-

come more modern in everyday life, but the devel-

opment of current technology also supports the busi-

ness world. The use of IT is an essential factor in

achieving company goals thereby increasing the com-

pany’s IT needs. The company’s IT needs that con-

tinue to grow indirectly result in increased corporate

spending for investment in the Information Technol-

ogy sector or commonly referred to as IT spending. IT

investment capital is higher than investment in other

ﬁelds(Yorukoglu, 1998).

On the other hand, some research evidence that

the amount of IT investment isn’t balanced the ben-

eﬁt or the contribution of IT to the enterprise. Thus

giving rise to the views of IT Skeptics stating that it is

estimated 68% of the company’s projects do not run

on time or budget, and after working on the project

does not provide support for business objectives as

promised(Jeffery and Leliveld, 2004). The views of

IT Skeptics is conﬁrmed by IT Paradox theory, which

shows that the beneﬁts of IT cannot be measured in-

deed (Brynjolfsson, 1993). The company has limited

resources, knowledge, and capabilities, so the selec-

tion of technology or IT projects is essential for man-

agement. The choice of the right resources derived

from dominant resources owned and controlled by the

company determines the level of success of the contri-

bution of information technology used to the achieve-

ment of company goals(Subriadi, 2013).

Companies need to set priorities given that IT in-

vestment will have an impact on companies when

companies invest and also need to ﬁnd ways to en-

courage companies to achieve faster business goals

to overcome IT paradox(H. Lee., 2016). Therefore

it is necessary to do the in-depth analysis before de-

termining the IT investment due to the accuracy of

IT planning and development is an essential key for

the company’s competitive advantage(Wen and Shih,

2006) (SUBRIADI et al., 2013).

The same problem also occurred at Bank Indone-

sia. Bank Indonesia has a vital role in state ﬁnance.

Therefore, having a superior performance is a com-

mitment to Bank Indonesia. Every year, BI receives

many projects to be realized, but BI has limited re-

sources. For BI to be able to choose which projects

must be achieved is a challenge.

In the case of research objects, management needs

to carry out the process of selecting and prioritizing

IT projects to facilitate the selection of IT projects

and ensure that IT projects realized will support the

achievement of the company’s business objectives.

Making a good selection of projects can signiﬁcantly

improve an organization’s ability to execute strategies

and improve results. Therefore, the purpose of this

study is to develop a model that supports the selection

and prioritization process in research objects. that

need to be improved, look for practical examples re-

lated to the implementation of these processes in var-

ious other organizations, and implement frameworks

related to prioritization processes as a reference for

improvement. The results of the study are a model of

IT project selection and prioritization.

Andini Permana, M. and Pribadi, A.

Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization: Study Case - Bank Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0009857700400047

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Creative Economics, Tourism and Information Management (ICCETIM 2019) - Creativity and Innovation Developments for Global

Competitiveness and Sustainability, pages 40-47

ISBN: 978-989-758-451-0

2 PROJECT SELECTION

FRAMEWORK

Project selection is a strategic decision because it

must be aligned with the organization’s business strat-

egy to ensure the maximum return of a selected port-

folio. Selection and priority processes are carried out

among many alternatives to ensure that the project

chosen is right is a complex issue, which requires

clear and deﬁnite criteria. Various literature states that

there are more than 100 techniques that can be used

by organizations to support the selection and priori-

tization process in their project portfolio. In general,

organizations will use more than one method but a

set of techniques and tools that are appropriate for

their organization(Cooper et al., 2001). Because of

the variety of techniques that can be used, organiza-

tions or companies need to adopt or develop a frame-

work or integration between processes and methods

and tools[9]. Although the project portfolio selection

process is considered very important, it has not yet de-

veloped as a series of clear and formal project selec-

tion processes(Pennypacker and Dye, 2002). Many

researchers and practitioners are aware of these short-

comings and are interested in conducting research and

developing a framework or process integration with

speciﬁc techniques and tools. Referring to the results

of the previous study(Le and Nguyen, 2008) which

states that each framework has its advantages and dis-

advantages, and makes a clear contribution to project

selection in the organization.

2.1 Integrated Framework for Project

Selection by NP Archer dan

Ghasemzadeh (1999)

Integrated framework for project selection is a frame-

work developed by (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999).

Unlike other frameworks, this framework supports the

portfolio selection process explicitly and focuses on

procedures and the use of tools and methodologies

that help project selection. This framework consists

of several stages which can be seen in ﬁgure 1.

Each stage in the framework will achieve sev-

eral objectives and produce input for the next several

steps(Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999). Archer de-

ﬁnes the framework to be a Process Stage, Selection

Stage, Activity, and Potential Methodologies, which

facilitates the process of adopting the framework.

Figure 1: Integrated Framework for Project Selection

2.2 Framework by Project Management

Institute

The PMI (Project Management Institute) is a

portfolio-related standard known as good practice re-

lated to the implementation of portfolio management.

This standard is a complement to the Project Manage-

ment Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)(Institute, 2008).

Figure 2: Portfolio Management Process

The standard developed by PMI divides portfolio

management into seven stages, namely:

1. Identiﬁcation: At this stage, information collected

regarding the project that is already running and

the list of proposed projects.

2. Categorization: At this stage, the classiﬁcation of

each project is carried out into several categories

based on the strategic plan.

3. Evaluation: At this stage, the review of each

project is carried out based on predetermined cri-

teria.

4. Selection: This stage is an essential process in

compiling a list of projects that have gone through

an evaluation process and are ready to be input in

the prioritization stage.

5. Prioritization: The main objective of this process

is to determine the ranking of each project in a

particular category of strategy or ﬁnancing, in-

Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization: Study Case - Bank Indonesia

vestment time frame, the risk versus return proﬁle,

and organizational focus.

6. Portfolio Balancing: The purpose of this stage

is to produce a portfolio by compiling projects

that have the best potential to support the organi-

zation’s strategic initiatives in achieving strategic

objectives.‘

7. Authorization: The main aim of this process is

to formally determine the ﬁnancial and human re-

source allocation of the company to develop busi-

ness cases or execute projects and to communicate

the results of portfolio balancing decisions.

In applying the standard, Government Investment

in China found that the stages in the rule could not fa-

cilitate strategic objective correlation with the project,

so they added one step in the standard, namely the

Identify The Government Strategic Objective stage

(Yu et al., 2008).

2.3 Framework by Cooper

Cooper compiled a selection framework consisting of

2 levels. The ﬁrst level is the level for determining

decisions related to the strategic portfolio (strategic

bucket) or strategy mapping. The second level, known

as the tactical level portfolio, will use different tech-

niques. At this level, it can use stage/gate techniques

and complementary PPMs.

Figure 3: Process hierarchy in project selection by Cooper

2.4 Framework by Englundan and

Graham (1999)

The framework developed by Englund and Graham

is a framework that refers to the ’mental decision-

making process’ approach. This approach has a

different concept from the framework developed by

(Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999). In ﬁgure 4 shows

that the framework by (Englund and Graham, 1999),

which divide into four stages consisting of:

1. What the organization should do

2. What the organization can do

3. Analyze and decide on a project

4. Implement the plan

Figure 4: Framework Englund and Graham

3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Framework Analysis

In general, each stage in this framework is similar to

other frameworks. However, the framework is more

focused on the management portfolio, not the project

selection and prioritization process. (Le and Nguyen,

2008) states that each framework has its advantages

and disadvantages, and makes a clear contribution to

project selection in the organization)(Le and Nguyen,

2008) . In general, there are no differences or con-

ﬂicts from the frameworks described. However, each

framework has different perspectives and approaches.

Based on the exploration framework conducted

by (Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999), An integrated

framework for project selection was chosen as the ba-

sis for modeling. The following are descriptions of

reasons that support the selection of the framework:

1. The framework is developed based on a decision-

making process that helps decision-makers in

making decisions and is different from other

frameworks

2. It is a framework designed with speciﬁc objectives

in project selection

3. Compiled with ﬂexibility, both activities, tools,

and methodologies used to be tailored to all types

of organizations and projects that are relevant to

applicability across organizations

Integrated Framework initiated by NP Archer will

divide each job into several stages, and each stage will

show certain achievements and will generate input for

the next stage. These sequential stages will assist the

decision-maker in carrying out project selection with

sequential logic to support decision making. This

framework has three main phases; strategic consider-

ation (helping to guard the strategic focus and overall

ICCETIM 2019 - International Conference on Creative Economics, Tourism Information Management

budget of the project), individual project evaluation

(evaluating projects independently of other projects),

and portfolio selection (project selection that refers

to project parameters, inter-project interactions, re-

source constraints, and other dependencies).

In developing this framework, NP Archer and F

Ghasemzadeh prioritize ﬂexibility for each organiza-

tion in implementing this framework to suit the needs

of the organization but still provide direction in its

stages to support the process ﬂow. Based on the

analysis conducted, found several problems, namely:

(1) The naming of less representative stage of selec-

tion. The naming of stages in the selection and pri-

oritization process in the Integrated framework for

project selection is so common that it is difﬁcult to

understand and does not represent the activities in the

stages. (2) This framework was developed in general

to facilitate the process of project selection and priori-

tization without reference to speciﬁc projects or types

of organizations. The result is an explanation of the

activities to be carried out therein are also generally

classiﬁed. (3) In its framework, Archer includes a

potential methodology to be applied by the company.

However, the use of methodology is closely related to

corporate preferences of what methodology is easy to

use and by its experience and culture.

3.2 Existing Conditions on the Research

Object

Implementation of the selection and prioritization

process at the research object is implemented in

the IT Steering Committee mechanism. Information

Technology Steering Committee isan administrative

comity that serves to conduct review, supervision, and

prioritization of IT projects. However, its application

to the research object is still experiencing problems.

Figure 5 is a summary of the issues that occurred in

the research object:

3.3 Design Model

Model compilation refers to the stages in the Inte-

grated Framework for Project Selection. This ar-

rangement is done by describing every step in the

framework and adapted to the present condition in the

research object as well as the result of the study of lit-

erature and empirical study. Here is a description of

each of these steps:

1. Pre-Screening

Pre-screening is the initial stage of the project se-

lection and prioritization process. What needs to

be done at this stage is to ensure that the projects

Figure 5: Table problem selection and prioritization in re-

search object

developed are in line with the focus of the port-

folio strategy. One technique that can be used in

strategy mapping is a strategic bucket. A strate-

gic bucket is one technique to ensure the suit-

ability of the strategy with a top-down approach

that maps each project into which strategy it sup-

ports(Cooper et al., 2002). Activities in this stage

include:

(a) Mapping of strategy

Mapping of strategy is an activity to ensure

that the project developed has alignment with

the company’s business strategy. Some tech-

niques can be used for mapping of project strat-

egy with business strategy, IT strategy, and pri-

marily focus from IT portfolio, among by clas-

sifying IT project proposals with each of these

strategies. An example of a technique that can

be used is a strategic bucket that will classify

each project based on which strategy it sup-

ports.

(b) Project Elimination that is not following the

strategy

At this stage, projects that do not ﬁt the strat-

egy or focus of enterprise IT development was

eliminated. With these eliminations, it can re-

duce the burden of the number of projects that

will go through the selection and prioritization

process.

An essential activity in this stage is to deter-

Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization: Study Case - Bank Indonesia

mine the parameters or criteria used in assess-

ing the project. The use of these criteria will

be scattered in the Individual Project Analy-

sis, Screening, and Optimal Portfolio Selection

steps tailored to the needs of each stage.

2. Individual Project Analysis

In individual project analysis, individual project

appraisal is conducted to ﬁnd out the clarity and

quality of the project in supporting the achieve-

ment of corporate strategy. This assessment is

based on the parameters or criteria speciﬁed in the

previous stages. Activities in the stages:

(a) Excavation of Project Information

In the individual project, the analysis will be

carried out information extraction related to the

proposed project that will be assessed with the

work unit of the project proponent. The use of

In-depth interview techniques to support indi-

vidual project appraisal is based on the process

as it is currently used by the IT Steering Com-

mittee team on the research object to clarify de-

tails of the project. The interview is based on

predetermined criteria.

(b) Project Assessment

After an In-depth Interview, each member of

the IT Steering Committee will conduct an as-

sessment of the proposed project. Evaluation is

done by Simpliﬁed Scoring Method technique.

The consideration of using the scoring method

is ease of use and has been similar to as is the

implementation of research object so it will be

easy to apply without special learning. The

scoring scale used also refers to the agreement

applied or determined.

3. Screening

Screening is an important part of the selection

process and priorities because at this stage will be

done second elimination. Activity in the screen-

ing stage:

(a) Determination of the Lower Bound-

ary(threshold) of Each Project At this stage

of screening the decision of the lower limit or

minimum value that must be met by a project

to be passed. The lower limit of each criterion

will be different from that determined by

the management. The determination of this

limitation is not done individually but based on

the agreement of the strategic forum.

(b) Project Elimination The next step after deter-

mining the threshold of each criterion is to

eliminate the project that does not meet the

lower limit using Ad Hoc Approach as proﬁles

method. The Ad Hoc Method Approach as Pro-

ﬁles is a method by including a lower threshold

directly on the device used in the assessment

process that was in the previous stage. In its ap-

plication to the research objects, the tools used

are spreadsheets. Therefore Ad Hoc Approach

as Proﬁles is applied through the insertion of

the lower bound on the spreadsheet form.

4. Optimal Portfolio Selection

In the Optimal Portfolio Selection stage, there is a

comparison between projects from the assessment

results on the criteria of ﬁltering and criteria. Ac-

tivities in this stage include:

(a) Project Prioritization Assessment (Prioritiza-

tion)

The main objective in this phase is to opti-

mize the IT portfolio by considering the cor-

relation between projects and prioritizing the

project group worker who has the potential to

provide optimal value for the company. Project

prioritization is carried out through the assess-

ment of criteria about the interdependency of

the project, resource struggles, technological

conformity, and time, and the value or value of

any previously considered project. The tech-

nique used in the assessment is the Scoring

Method. The use of the scoring method is due

to its ease of use. Besides the Scoring Method

is used to adjust to the overall assessment pro-

cess used previously because, at the end of the

selection and prioritization process, all assess-

ment forms will be incorporated as tools in con-

ducting sensitivity analysis. The importance of

project prioritization for organizations due to

limited resources, money, and human resources

to fund all projects(Turner, 2009).

(b) Mapping of Priority in Prioritization Matrix

A prioritization matrix is a tool used by a com-

pany to visualize prioritization results. Based

on the results of literature review and empiri-

cal study several types of matrices can be used

in mapping priorities, including the nine boxes

matrix as used by Bank Indonesia and 2x2 ma-

trix as used by Bank Mandiri and Banque de

France. Based on the results of the study re-

lated to the advantages and disadvantages of

each matrix, the 2x2 matrix was proposed. The

2x2 matrix selection refers to the mapping of IT

portfolio dimensions implemented by the For-

tune 500 consumer package-goods company in

Best Practice in IT Portfolio Management[2].

The selection of 2x2 matrix usage is also ap-

plied by Bank Mandiri and Banque de France

because of its simple tendency and can map

ICCETIM 2019 - International Conference on Creative Economics, Tourism Information Management

ﬁrmly with the division of 4 different criteria.

Referring to the literature review in Best Prac-

tice in IT Management Portfolio priority map-

ping priority will be based on risk (risk) and its

contribution to the business (value to the busi-

ness). Based on these two main factors, the

next project is categorized into four categories:

High Priority (Funding Priority), Medium Pri-

ority (Difﬁcult to Execute), Low Priority (Fund

Selectively) and Do Not Fund. Figure 6 shows

the 2x2 matrix that will be used in the prioriti-

zation process.

Figure 6: Matrix Recommendation

5. Portfolio Adjustment

The ﬁnal output of the overall stage is to present

the overall view of the selection and prioritization

process, which is complemented by the charac-

teristics of each project. In addition to showing

the overview, Archer (1999) also emphasized the

importance of allowing decision-makers to make

ﬁnal adjustments before making a ﬁnal decision

related to the portfolio. Activities in this stage are:

(a) Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis is the stage that must be

in the portfolio adjustment; it is because be-

fore the ﬁnal decision is taken, decision-makers

need to get a chance to review and change the

results of the previous stages. One of the tools

that can be used in doing sensitivity analysis

is spreadsheets in Excel (J. Malligan., 2011).

Sensitivity analysis can be done by collecting

the entire criteria and results of a project assess-

ment calculation in a Spreadsheet (Ms. Excel)

to provide data records during the process if re-

quired by IT Steering Committee participants

and facilitate the process of what-if analysis if

the IT Steering Committee participants want to

make changes to the composition of the project.

(b) Project Categorization and Portfolio Visualiza-

tion

At this stage also done categorization of

projects based on speciﬁc criteria. The main

objective of this categorization is to get an

overview or visibility of the entire project plan

by displaying relevant information related to

the project. Visualization of project categoriza-

tion in the portfolio can be done by using Bub-

ble Graph matrix.

4 RESULT

The formulation of the selection and prioritization

model was carried out by the process of analyzing

the existing framework and verifying the research ob-

ject. The results of making this model can be seen

in Figure 8. This model handles several local issues

related to the selection and prioritization process of

IT projects found in research objects. The following

Figure 7 is a summary of locality issues related to the

selection and prioritization process.

Figure 7: Table of a local issue.

Figure 8: Proposed Model

Based on the description above then obtained the

model of prioritization and project selection as fol-

lows:

1. Strategy Alignment

This stage was proposed from the Pre-Screening

stage from the framework by Archer. This stage

is the stage to ensure the project ﬁts the strategic

focus, guarding the overall process, and eliminat-

ing projects that do not meet the criteria. Input at

this stage is the main strategy of the research ob-

ject, the project proposal document, and the list of

selection criteria and prioritization. At this stage,

project mapping and project elimination that are

inconsistent with strategies and criteria are per-

formed using scoring methods. So it can gener-

ate a list of proposed projects that are by the busi-

Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization: Study Case - Bank Indonesia

ness strategy and IT and list the agreed criteria and

techniques to use.

2. Assessment

This stage was proposed from the Individual

Project Analysis stage from the framework by

Archer. This stage is the stage of calculating the

assessment criteria determined for each project.

Input at this stage is a list of proposed projects that

have been through strategy mapping and List cri-

teria used in the assessment. This stage is used to

explore project information and project appraisal

by conducting an in-depth interview and scoring

method to produce a list of interview results and

assessment results from each project.

3. Filtration

This stage is a project elimination stage that does

not meet the speciﬁed value. The input of this

stage is the result of individual assessment. The

process undertaken is the determination of the

lower bound, the collection of project appraisal

results and project elimination using ad hoc ap-

proach as proﬁles and scoring method to generate

a list of projects that have been through the project

assessment and ﬁltering process.

4. Prioritization

This stage is the stage of consideration of the cor-

relation between projects in an integrated way to

optimize the portfolio. Input at this stage is a

list of proposed projects that have been through

assessment and ﬁltering and a list of prioritiza-

tion criteria. The process undertaken in this step

projects prioritization and project mapping in the

prioritization matrix using the scoring method and

2x2 matrix to generate the priority ranking of the

project based on the assessment of the prioritiza-

tion process and the project priority results in the

prioritization matrix.

5. Visualization

This stage is the stage of allowing the decision-

maker to make changes and display the overview

of the portfolio. The inputs at this stage are the

entire assessment form, the project appraisal re-

sult, and the project priority outcome. The process

is sensitivity analysis and portfolio visualization

with spreadsheet set of scoring method form and

bubble graph matrix to produce a list of projects

to be implemented and portfolio visualization ma-

trices.

The model is validated against research objects.

This validation aims to determine the suitability of the

framework with the conditions in the research object.

The validation results are the ﬁnal model of selection

and prioritization of the IT project. The ﬁnal model

can be seen in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Table of the ﬁnal model of selection and prioriti-

zation IT projects.

ICCETIM 2019 - International Conference on Creative Economics, Tourism Information Management

5 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study, several frameworks can support

the process of selection and prioritization, but none of

which is declared as best practice so that the necessary

process of adjustment to the organization. This model

uses An Integrated Framework for Project Selection

as a reference framework for the next developed into

a conceptual model.

Based on the result of the exploration of the se-

lected framework, there are some deﬁciencies in the

framework, such as the names in the stages that are

considered less representative and the need for de-

tailed activities in each stage, conceptual model pro-

poses with the following details: 1) Strategy Align-

ment,2) Assessment, 3) Filtration, 4) Prioritization,

and 5) Visualization. Each stage consists of certain

activities that refer to the results of the empirical study

and literature review.

This model is created by adopting wisdom and

successfully implemented in the research object. The

success of the model implementation is proven by ver-

ifying the research object. Aspects of local wisdom

in this model include: (1) Different IT development

focuses each year so that a strategic alignment assess-

ment process is needed, (2) Commonly inclined strat-

egy directives, (3) Unoptimal matrices, and (4) De-

termination of reverse priority sequences. Referring

to the importance of culture, process, experience, and

governance in supporting the optimization of the port-

folio selection process, it is necessary to extract

REFERENCES

Archer, N. P. and Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated

framework for project portfolio selection. Interna-

tional Journal of Project Management, 17(4):207–

216.

Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of in-

formation technology. Communications of the ACM,

36(12):66–77.

Cooper, R., Edgett, S., and Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Port-

folio management for new product development: re-

sults of an industry practices study. r&D Manage-

ment, 31(4):361–380.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2002).

Portfolio management: fundamental to new product

success. The PDMA ToolBook 1 for New Product De-

velopment, 9:331–364.

Englund, R. L. and Graham, R. J. (1999). From experience:

linking projects to strategy. Journal of Product In-

novation Management: AN INTERNATIONAL PUB-

LICATION OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT &

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 16(1):52–64.

Institute, P. M. (2008). The standard for portfolio manage-

ment, second edition.

Jeffery, M. and Leliveld, I. (2004). Best practices in it port-

folio management. MIT Sloan Management Review,

45(3):41.

Le, C. M. and Nguyen, V. T. (2008). Strategy for project

portfolio selection in private corporations in Vietnam.

Handelsh

ogskolan vid Ume

a universitet.

Pennypacker, J. S. and Dye, L. D. (2002). Project portfo-

lio management and managing multiple projects: two

sides of the same coin. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Subriadi, A. (2013). Kontradiksi produktivitas teknologi

informasi: Sebuah perspektif information technology

strategic alignment dan resource based view. Jour-

nal of Theoritical and Applied Information Technol-

ogy, pages 541–550.

SUBRIADI, A. P., HADIWIDJOJO, D., RAHAYU, M.,

SARNO, R., et al. (2013). Information technology

productivity paradox: A resource-based view and in-

formation technology strategic alignment perspective

for measuring information technology contribution on

performance. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Infor-

mation Technology, 54(3).

Turner, J. R. (2009). The handbook of project-based man-

agement: leading strategic change in organizations.

McGraw-hill.

Wen, H. J. and Shih, S. C. (2006). Strategic information

technology prioritization. Journal of Computer Infor-

mation Systems, 46(4):54–63.

Yorukoglu, M. (1998). The information technology pro-

ductivity paradox. Review of Economic Dynamics,

1(2):551–592.

Yu, S., Wang, J., and Guo, N. (2008). The application

of project portfolio management in the government

investment projects. In 2008 International Seminar

on Business and Information Management, volume 2,

pages 513–516. IEEE.

Propose Model of IT Project Selection and Prioritization: Study Case - Bank Indonesia