Cited by 18Information and Cyber SecurityInformation Technology Governance and StrategyE-Government and Public Services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 37 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Best practice framework for information technology security governance in Indonesian government

Open access
Yuliana, Rika, Arifin Hasibuan, Zainal·2022·International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)

Abstract

Information technology security is crucial for a digital government system to have so that the continuity of business processes can run smoothly. However, the current best practice of information security governance in the Indonesian national government is still inadequate according to various related studies still siloed and scattered and leading to vulnerabilities in the various digital services provided. Therefore, this study aims to develop a best practice framework for managing information security that is aligned with the needs of Indonesia's digital government. This research started by looking for the main framework of information security governance. Then the main components that resulted from that were benchmarked with other Information Security Governance (ISG) best practices from different countries. Finally, it ended up complementing them with information security parameters, other related components, and recommendations, particularly in the Indonesian context, so that the main components and their respective constituent sub-components can be obtained according to the needs of the Indonesian e-government. The cause-and-effect analysis concept analyses the data linkages between the six central components and their respective sub-components. This study concludes that each of main components and sub-components supports each other so that all these things must be carried out in a balanced and continuous manner.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper develops a best-practice framework for IT security governance in Indonesian e-government by combining a CPS security governance model and information security critical success factors, benchmarking against other countries, and adding Indonesian-specific parameters, elements, and recommendations. It concludes that six interdependent main components—evaluation, direction, observation, performance conformance, compliance, and operational processes—must be implemented in a balanced, continuous, and synergistic way, though many subcomponent activities still require further development.

Key findings

  • The proposed framework has six main components: evaluation, direction, observation, performance conformance, action skills (compliance), and operational processes (policies and procedures). These contain subcomponents, including five evaluation subcomponents, five observation subcomponents, three performance conformance subcomponents, one compliance subcomponent, and ten operational-process subcomponents.
  • Benchmarking found that the USA had all main components, while Malaysia and South Africa had some of them; the paper states these countries complement one another and validate that Indonesia’s digital government needs all components.
  • Cause-and-effect analysis indicated strong relationships among the six main components and their subcomponents: neglecting one component or subcomponent can disrupt the overall information security system, so they must be carried out in a balanced and continuous manner.
  • Many activities within the subcomponents are not yet optimal and need further development because Indonesian information security parameters, related elements, or recommendations are missing or incomplete—for example, incident management, business continuity, controlling mechanisms and processes, timely and accurate IS performance reporting, third-party engagement, data copyright and privacy, and effective business continuity/disaster recovery planning.

Methods

  • The study used a three-stage conceptual development process: stage 1 derived main components from a CPS security governance model and information security critical success factors; stage 2 benchmarked these against ICT/ISG best practices from the United States, Malaysia, and Africa/South Africa; stage 3 complemented them with Indonesian information security parameters, related elements, and cybersecurity recommendations.
  • Data came from prior studies, standards, frameworks, laws, guidelines, and expert recommendations; no empirical survey, case sample, or statistical dataset is reported.
  • Cause-and-effect analysis was used to analyze data linkages between the six main components and their respective subcomponents.

Limitations

  • The paper states that many activities within each subcomponent are still inadequate or not optimal and require continuous development, and that there is a lack of synergy between current IT governance and IT security governance in Indonesia.
  • The paper states that gaps within best-practice subcomponents are unavoidable outcomes and can be used for future developments in Indonesia and other relevant nationalities.
  • Evident from the text: the framework is conceptual and not empirically validated or implemented; the benchmarking is limited to selected countries with a brief rationale (political system, human resources index, and geolocation), and several tables/figures appear incomplete in the provided text.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11591/ijece.v12i6.pp6522-6534

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 . Figure1. Information security governance positioned[14]
Figure 1 . Figure1. Information security governance positioned[14]CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 2 . Figure 2. The relationship between information and communication security, information security and cyber security [14]
Figure 2 . Figure 2. The relationship between information and communication security, information security and cyber security [14]CC-BY-SA · From the PDF
Figure 3 .Figure 4 . Figure 3. Research methodology
Figure 3 .Figure 4 . Figure 3. Research methodologyCC-BY-SA · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

32 Sources not found · 13 Own result · 5 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given

Show all 14 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 34
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
40 of 40
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The United States, Malaysia, and Africa/South Africa are appropriate comparators for Indonesia because of similarities in political system, human resources index, and geolocation.

    “which consists of United States, Malaysia and Africa because of the political system, human resources index and geolocation closed similarities with Indonesia respectively.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    External rules and regulations frequently govern an organization's ability to collect information, conduct investigations, and control networks.

    “External rules and regulations frequently govern an organization's ability to collect information, conduct investigations, and control the networks among other activities of the information gotten from technology security.”
2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. H. Ardiyanti, "Cyber-security and its development challenges in Indonesia," (in Bahasa), Jurnal Politica Dinamika Masalah Politik Dalam Negeri dan Hubungan Internasional, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95-119, 2014.
  2. A. B. Setiawan, "In the application of E-Government," (in Bahasa), Jurnal Masyarakat Telematika dan Informasi, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 109-126, 2013.
  3. DHS, "Cyber resilience review," Department Homeland University, Carnegie Mellon University, 2011.
  4. J. Andress, Foundations of information security. No Starch Press, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yuliana, R., & Arifin Hasibuan, Z.
Affiliations
Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry (ID)
Venue
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE)
Published
2022-12-01
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
6522
ISSN
  • 2722-256X (ISSN-L)
  • 2722-2578
  • 2088-8708
OpenAlex
W4296713784
Cited by
18
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems/International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
information security governance, best practice framework, e-government, Indonesian government, cause-and-effect analysis, benchmarking, business continuity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review