DIGITAL TWIN CONCEPT FOR INDONESIA DIGITAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56127/ijst.v1i2.146Keywords:
Digital Twin,Indonesia, Digital Government, IT Governance.Abstract
This paper explores the possibility of digital twin concept implementation framework in Indonesia Digital Government Systems (IDGS) using Information Technology (IT) Governance indicators states in Indonesian Government regulation. The concept of Indonesia Digital Government regulated by Indonesia Presidential Regulation no. 95 year 2018 that define digital government as a governance that adapting to advances of technology information and communication and utilize optimally so it can provide service to citizen in most efficient and effective way. Indonesia government implement IT Governance using regulation publish by the Minister of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform No. 59 year 2020 about monitoring and evaluation of Indonesia Digital Government System. In the regulation, the governance consists of monitoring, which is a systematic assessment process through verification of information on the results of the Self-Assessment to measure the maturity level of implementation and the evaluation, is a process of self-assessment systematically through verification and clarification of information which can be continued with information validation to the results of the Self-Assessment to measure maturity level of digital government system implementation. The concept of exploiting digital twin concept to Governed IT Management is a framework introduce by Geert Poels, Henderik A. Proper and Dominik Bork in 2021. The Digital Twin concept itself already utilize to do such as monitoring data, data analysis, conduct simulation, and enhances performance of assets. The framework will be use as a technology infrastructure reference model that facilitate Digital Twin in conceptual aspect where process of IT governance, organizational IT assets management and IT management processes, connected.
References
McLoughlin, I and Wilson R. 2013. Digital Government at Work; A Social Informatics Perspective. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom.
Gottschalk, P. 2009. Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 75–81.
Berman, S., & Bell, R. 2011. Digital transformation: Creating new business models where digital meets physical. In IBM Institute for Business Value (Ed.), IBM global business services: Strategy and transformation [Executive report]. IBM Global Business Services.
The President Republic of Indonesia. 2018. Presidensial Regulation Number 95 about Indonesia Digital Government Systems.
Aminah, S. and saksono, H., 2021. Digital Transformation of the Government: A Case Study in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of Communication Jilid 37(2) 2021: 272-288
Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia. 2019. Laporan tahunan 2019 Kementrian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia. KOMINFO Indonesia.
Novita, D. 2014. Faktor-faktor penghambat pengembangan e-government: Studi kasus pemerintah Kota Palembang, Sumatera Selatan. Jurnal Eksplora Informatika, 4(1), 43–52.
United Nations. 2018. E-government survey 2018: gearing e-government to supports transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. united nations department of economic and social affairs. Public Administration UN.
The Minister for Empowerment of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform. 2020. Ministry Regulation Number 59 of 2020 about Monitoring and Evaluation of Indonesia Digital Government Systems.
Proper, H.A., Bork, D. and Poels, G., 2021. Towards an Ontology-Driven Approach for Digital Twin Enabled Governed IT Management. In First Workshop on Ontology-Driven Conceptual Modelling of Digital Twins (ODCM-DT 2021) (Vol. 2941). CEUR.
VanDerHorn, E. and Mahadevan, S., 2021. Digital Twin: Generalization, characterization and implementation. Decision Support Systems, 145, p.113524.
Poels, G., Proper, H.A. and Bork, D., 2022, January. DT4GITM-A Vision for a Framework for Digital Twin enabled IT Governance. In HICSS (pp. 1-10).
Debreceny, R.S. and Gray, G.L., 2013. IT governance and process maturity: A multinational field study. Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), pp.157-188.
COBIT 2019 Framework: Governance and Management Objectives. Schaumberg, Illinois: ISACA, 2019.
Buchgeher, G., Gabauer, D., Martinez-Gil, J. and Ehrlinger, L., 2021. Knowledge graphs in manufacturing and production: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 9, pp.55537-55554.
Siegel, M., 2003, June. The sense-think-act paradigm revisited. In 1st International Workshop on Robotic Sensing, 2003. ROSE'03. (pp. 5-pp). IEEE.
Meriyem, C., Adil, S. and Hicham, M., 2015. IT Governance ontology building process: example of developing audit ontology. International Journal of Computer Techniques, 2(1), pp.134-141.
De Haes, S. and Van Grembergen, W., 2009. An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business/IT alignment. Information Systems Management, 26(2), pp.123-137.
Smits, D. and van Hillegersberg, J., 2019. Diminishing the Gap Between IT Governance Maturity Theory and Practice: Renewing the Approach. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance (IJITBAG), 10(1), pp.1-21.
Henriques, D., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I.S., Almeida, R. and da Silva, M.M., 2020. How IT Governance can assist IoT project implementation. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 8(3), pp.25-45.
Dietz, M. and Pernul, G., 2020. Digital twin: Empowering enterprises towards a system-of-systems approach. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62(2), pp.179-184.
