government, and increasing the ability of government
officials to use them.
Hopefully, the development of digital public
services will realize a complete system of government
administration application services. The digital system
will contain various information and complaint
services, such as agency or service programs, up to the
budget amount. The application system is also
expected to be able to monitor the performance of
government devices. The community can also carry
out direct supervision through the system. This
innovation is expected to increase budget
effectiveness and efficiency, increase supervision, and
minimize corruption. A more transparent system,
tighter and real-time controls, and changes in work
patterns must be carried out by government officials.
However, the migration process from offline to
online encountered various obstacles in terms of
system and equipment readiness, human resource
readiness, and data readiness. The thing that is most
often encountered is the tendency of resistance from
government apparatus (Choi, et al., 2016). It occurs
because of the change in performance patterns from
manual to electronic-based, which requires many
adjustments. There are still many officials who are not
ready to use digital systems due to technical
incompetence. In addition, non-technical obstacles
such as the employee mindset, disturbed particular
interests, and work habits hinder this migration
process. Thus, in the early stages, there were shocks
for the officials who carried out government activities
or tasks, which when viewed from the choked up the
process of digitizing public services (Maulana, et al.,
2019).
This constraint theoretically is closely related
to the mentality of the apparatus, which still has
the characteristics of the old public
administration. The bureaucracy tends to work in
a secure manner, is slow and is not responsive to
the needs of society. Apart from constraints on
the operator side, there were also obstacles on the
digital application and its infrastructure
development side. The digital application has not
been able to anticipate changes or dynamics in
budgeting and its implementation, as is the
manual system. There was also a weakness in the
network on the infrastructure side that supports
the need for data flow.
2.2 Risk of Digital Public Service
System
The risk analysis of digital application development
can be carried out from various types of
classifications. Risk classification in digital
applications is mostly carried out on user,
communication, market, resource, financial,
technical, managerial risk, application performance,
maintenance, and external factors. In the analysis, the
risk assessment process can be carried out as follows
(Kushagr, et al., 2013):
A risk classification framework based on the
impact on the organization which is divided into
security risk, availability, performance and risk of
regulatory compliance, requirements and policies.
A scale assessment that shows gaps between
controls needs, technical issues, and business risks.
The risks identified in this framework are
applications, information, infrastructure and
human resources.
In addition, governance requires innovation in
governance and human resource development as the
driving force of government. The competence of
human resources is regarded as an essential point to
encourage a country to innovate. Apart from the need
for investment and technology, skilled human
resources are also prepared to welcome Industry 4.0
(Hecklau, et al., 2017). The risks of implementing
digital systems in public services can be adequately
mitigated and impact various aspects of life,
including the government sector.
2.3 The Framework of Risk Analysis in
Digitalisation of Public Services
This study employs a digital system risk management
by classifying risks based on the COBIT 5 definition
(ISACA, 2019) and risk classification according to
the Symantec model framework (Fauzi, et al. 2018).
The application of information technology risk
management analysis includes identification,
measurement and management of risks related to
technical capabilities. The
Symantec framework used
in this paper classifies risk in 4 terms, namely:
a. Performance - where the performance is less than
the system, application, personnel, or IT as a
whole, can reduce productivity or business value.
b. Availability - where information or applications
cannot be accessed due to system failure or natural
disaster, including the recovery period.
c. Compliance - where the handling or processing of
information fails to comply with regulatory, IT or
business policy requirements