Citizens’ or Government’s Will? Exploration of Why Indonesia’s Local Governments Adopt Technologies for Open Government

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Open Data brings along its unique data formats and this aspect is not elaborated in detail.

 

Figure 1 (p. 8) is not clear and a high-resolution photo is needed

 

Web 2.0 public data format within Indonesian context could have been extensively explored.

 

e-Musrenbang DKI, LAKSA, Tangerang Live etc (p.26) are important contributions and decisive aspects of this paper. it is suggested to use them within the main paper instead of appendix.

 

The research question needs to be explicitly mentioned even though the title of the paper’s does hint at that.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your useful feedback on our paper. Hereby, we provide our response and explanation on the changes according to your feedback.

1. English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Spell checking has been performed

2. Open Data brings along its unique data formats and this aspect is not elaborated in detail.

Further explanation regarding the uniqueness of open data produced by the web 2.0 platform has been added to the literature review section (Line177-185). We merged Open Government and Web 2.0 sections in the literature review.

3. Figure 1 (p. 8) is not clear and a high-resolution photo is needed

The figure has been fixed with a higher-resolution image

4. Web 2.0 public data format within Indonesian context could have been extensively explored.

We rephrased the study context section and provide a more explicit explanation regarding the web 2.0 public data format in Indonesia.

5. e-Musrenbang DKI, LAKSA, Tangerang Live etc (p.26) are important contributions and decisive aspects of this paper. it is suggested to use them within the main paper instead of the appendix.

The appendix has been merged into the study context section.

6. The research question needs to be explicitly mentioned even though the title of the paper’s does hint at that.

This suggestion is already incorporated. The RQ can be seen at line 99

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. I believe that it is of high quality and presents a logical and thorough qualitative approach to understanding Open Government adoption of five Indonesian governments.

Comments to consider:

Thinking about scale: You chose to study three different levels of government. During your analysis, did the fifteen factors have any commonalities between the different scales (i.e between the two municipalities, or the two regencies)? To better understand if there are differences in Web 2.0 adoption based on scale may need a larger sample size.

An additional limitation: Your study focused on governments that have already adopted Web 2.0 technologies. However, it would be beneficial to also study governments that have not adopted Web 2.0 technologies. What are the factors that have kept them from adopting Web 2.0 technologies? Are they related to the factors described in this research?

Minor editing required: For example, figure 1 needs to have a higher DPI and the Section 3 subtitles are all listed as "2.3".

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your useful feedback on our paper. Hereby, we provide our response and explanation on the changes according to your feedback.

1. English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

   Spell checking has been performed

2. Thinking about scale: You chose to study three different levels of government. During your analysis, did the fifteen factors have any commonalities between the different scales (i.e between the two municipalities, or the two regencies)? To better understand if there are differences in Web 2.0 adoption based on scale may need a larger sample size.

Table 4 (Line 495) showed how each factor affects each level of government. There are several factors that shared commonalities for all government levels, and some factors have different effects on a different government scale. It did not provide strong quantitative proof but can be treated as initial findings for further exploration.

2. An additional limitation: Your study focused on governments that have already adopted Web 2.0 technologies. However, it would be beneficial to also study governments that have not adopted Web 2.0 technologies. What are the factors that have kept them from adopting Web 2.0 technologies? Are they related to the factors described in this research?

Limitations about exploration in government institutions that have not adopted web 2.0 technology added.  This study did not involve an institution that has not adopted the technology, but some interviewees expressed explanations of how they transform from pre-adoption to post-adoption conditions. Some factors with negative effects (as shown in Table 4) can be used as the hypothesis for future studies to explore adoption inhibitors.

3. Minor editing required: For example, figure 1 needs to have a higher DPI and the Section 3 subtitles are all listed as "2.3".

The minor changes have already been performed.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-written and interesting paper.

There are some points that need to be addressed.

My major concern is about research methodology.

1. In line 219 the authors mention that they adopt TOMIE  an extended version of the TOE Framework to identify and classify adoption factors. Is this the case?
2. The authors adopt a qualitative approach in this research. In table 1 they summarize previous works that use TOE having a qualitative approach. What about DOI and Institutional Theory? I have studied many works using DOI, and all of them use quantitative research methods and usually use SEM to analyze the data. So please support your research methodology by citing papers that use DOI and Institutional Theory and adopt qualitative approaches. 

Some minor issues also:

1. Add the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction
2. Take care about in-text citations. Some are not cited correctly (e.g. the year is given instead of the numbers)

Good luck with the revisions

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your helpful feedback on our paper. Hereby, we provide our response and explanation on the changes according to your feedback.

In line 219 the authors mention that they adopt TOMIE  an extended version of the TOE Framework to identify and classify adoption factors. Is this the case?

We have paraphrased the sentences to make the explanation clearer (Line 224).

The authors adopt a qualitative approach in this research. In table 1 they summarize previous works that use TOE having a qualitative approach. What about DOI and Institutional Theory? I have studied many works using DOI, and all of them use quantitative research methods and usually use SEM to analyze the data. So please support your research methodology by citing papers that use DOI and Institutional Theory and adopt qualitative approaches. 

We have included a citation of prior work in the Indonesian context that uses DOI and institutional theory in a qualitative study (Line 326). It is a study that explores B2B e-Commerce adoption. Thus, our study could give more context on the usage of those theories

Add the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction

The paper structure has been added to the last paragraph of the introduction section

Take care about in-text citations. Some are not cited correctly (e.g. the year is given instead of the numbers)

In-text citations have been revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

The idea of the article is valid, especially in the context of the public sector at the level of the local government. 
In my opinion, the manuscript is well prepared. The idea of the article is clear. Every step in the article is well described.   It is easy to read and understand the main idea of the article. 
The research methodology and the research - interviews are well preapared. 
The contribution of this article is significant. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much. We have revised our paper by adding some refinement to enhance the clarity of the paper. Some minor issues related to formatting has been fixed.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors 

thank you for addressing my comments.