Performance in the Post-Pandemic Era: A Study on Non-Face-to-Face Service Innovations in Local Government Institutions

Decky Perdanaputra, Ade Fahmi, Sa’adih Sa’adih

Abstract


This study examines the performance of non-face-to-face public service innovations implemented by local government institutions in the post-pandemic era. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with public officials and document analysis from selected municipal governments. The findings reveal that while digital service innovations have improved accessibility, efficiency, and continuity of service delivery, they also face challenges such as digital inequality, limited infrastructure, staff capacity gaps, and the absence of unified regulatory frameworks. Moreover, public trust in digital services is influenced by data privacy, responsiveness, and user experience. The study underscores that technological tools alone are insufficient; effective implementation requires institutional readiness, digital literacy, ethical governance, and citizen engagement. As public expectations shift toward digital convenience and transparency, local governments must adopt inclusive, adaptive, and sustainable strategies to ensure long-term performance improvement in public service delivery. This research contributes to the discourse on post-pandemic governance by highlighting the need for an integrated approach to digital public service innovation.

Keywords


public service; digital innovation; non-face-to-face services; local government; post-pandemic governance; service performance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kettl, D. F. (2020). The divided states of America: Why federalism doesn’t work. Princeton University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Meijer, A. (2020). The do-it-yourself state: The future of participatory democracy. Information Polity, 25(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200234

Mergel, I. (2019). Digital service teams in government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.001

OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. https://www.oecd.org/gov/the-oecd-digital-government-policy-framework.pdf

UNDP. (2021). Digital public services in response to COVID-19: Rapid assessment of government service delivery. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24967/jshs.v8i2.4289

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 154 times
PDF : 64 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Creative Commons License
Jurnal Sosial dan Humanis Sains is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License