The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 4 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Analisis Manajemen Risiko Aplikasi SRIKANDI Pada Kantor Diskominfo Kota Manado Menggunakan ISO 31000
Open accessAbstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui hasil analisis manajemen resiko dengan menggunakan metode ISO 31000 pada aplikasi SRIKANDI dengan harapan dapat meminimalisir tingkat resiko pada penggunaan aplikasi SRIKANDI di Dinas Kominfo Pemerintah Kota Manado. Aplikasi SRIKANDI yaitu aplikasi yang digunakan untuk mempermudah kearsipan yang dapat mendukung pengelolaan arsip dan tata kelolah pemerintah berbasis elektronik. Beberapa tahapan yang sudah dilakukan antara lain tahap pengumpulan data, identifikasi resiko, analisis resiko, evaluasi resiko, dan perlakuan resiko. Berdasarkan hasil analisis yang dilakukan, hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat 23 kemungkinan resiko yang bisa saja terjadi dimana memiliki 13 kemungkinan resiko yang tinggi (High), 5 kemungkinan yang sedang (Medium), dan 5 kemungkinan resiko yang rendah (Low). This study aims to determine the results of risk management analysis using the ISO 31000 method in the SRIKANDI application in the hope of minimizing the level of risk in using the SRIKANDI application at the Manado City Government Communication and Information Office. The SRIKANDI application is an application used to facilitate archives that can support electronic-based archive management and government governance. Some of the stages that have been carried out include the stages of data collection, risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk treatment. Based on the results of the analysis conducted, the results showed that there are 23 possible risks that could occur which have 13 high-risk possibilities (High), 5 medium possibilities (Medium), and 5 low-risk possibilities (Low).
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper analyzes risks in the SRIKANDI archives application at Diskominfo Kota Manado using ISO 31000, identifying 23 possible risks across natural, human, and system/infrastructure factors. It finds 13 high, 5 medium, and 5 low risks, with high risks concentrated in human and system/infrastructure factors.
Key findings
- The study identified 23 possible risks for the SRIKANDI application, grouped into natural, human, and system/infrastructure factors.
- Risk evaluation classified 13 risks as High, 5 as Medium, and 5 as Low.
- High risks included penyalahgunaan hak akses, human error, hacking, pencurian data/perangkat keras, trouble web server, server down, listrik padam secara tiba-tiba, koneksi jaringan gangguan, koneksi jaringan terputus, koneksi jaringan tidak stabil, data dan informasi yang tidak sesuai, dokumentasi data tidak lengkap, and proses maintenance tidak terjadwal.
- Medium risks were kerusakan hardware, kerusakan software, data corrupt, serangan virus, and backup failure; Low risks were gempa bumi, kebakaran, banjir, petir, and UI desain yang susah dipahami.
Methods
- Qualitative descriptive study using ISO 31000 risk management stages: data collection, risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk treatment.
- Data were collected through interviews or questionnaires with Diskominfo employees who had used the SRIKANDI application; the paper does not report the number of participants.
- Risk analysis used 5-point likelihood and impact criteria, then a risk evaluation matrix to classify each risk as Low, Medium, or High.
Limitations
- The paper states no limitations.
- Evident from the text: the study is a single-site qualitative case at Diskominfo Kota Manado, with no reported sample size or participant details.
- Evident from the text: risk ratings rely on likelihood and impact scoring without reported statistical validation or inter-rater reliability checks.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 2 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R16 Data Corrupt 2 3 Medium”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R02 Kebakaran 2 1 Low”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dapat dilihat bahwa faktor kemungkinan resiko yang tinggi (High) terdapat pada faktor manusia dan faktor sistem maupun infrastruktur sedangkan faktor alam memiliki kemungkinan resiko yang rendah (Low) dan Sebagian sistem dan infrastruktur memiliki kemungkinan resiko yang sedang (Medium).”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > KESIMPULAN
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R08 Pencurian Data/Perangkat Keras 3 5 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R20 Dokumentasi data tidak lengkap 4 4 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R07 Hacking 4 5 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R13 Koneksi jaringan gangguan 5 5 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R06 Human Error 5 3 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R18 Koneksi jaringan tidak stabil 5 4 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“R21 Proses maintenance tidak terjadwal 5 5 High”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dapat dilihat bahwa faktor kemungkinan resiko yang tinggi (High) terdapat pada faktor manusia dan faktor sistem maupun infrastruktur sedangkan faktor alam memiliki kemungkinan resiko yang rendah (Low) dan Sebagian sistem dan infrastruktur memiliki kemungkinan resiko yang sedang (Medium).”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > KESIMPULAN
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“terdapat 23 kemungkinan resiko yang bisa saja terjadi dimana memiliki 13 kemungkinan resiko yang tinggi (High), 5 kemungkinan yang sedang (Medium), dan 5 kemungkinan resiko yang rendah (Low).”
- Also stated in: § KESIMPULAN · plain
“Dimana terdapat 23 kemungkinan resiko yang bisa saja terjadi dimana memiliki 13 kemungkinan resiko yang tinggi (High), 5 kemungkinan yang sedang (Medium), dan 5 kemungkinan resiko yang rendah (Low).”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § KESIMPULAN · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Manajemen resiko sangat diperlukan dalam suatu perusahaan atau organisasi karena dibutuhkan sebagai standar atau pedoman yang bisa membantu dalam meminimalisirkan resika yang mungkin terjadi (Munawwaroh, 2017;Rilyani dkk, 2015;Utamajaya dkk, 2021).”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Manajeman Resiko
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Munawwaroh, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rilyani dkk, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Utamajaya dkk, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
“R09 UI Desain yang susah di pahami 5 2 Low”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Evaluasi Resiko
“Tabel 5. Matrix Evaluasi Resiko Likehood Certain 5 Medium Medium High High High”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Dan dari hasil terdapat 19 resiko yang dapat terjadi. 1 resiko ekstrim, 2 resiko tinggi, 4 resiko sedang, dan 5 resiko rendah.”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Abstract
Reported 19 · recomputed 12
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > METODE PENELITIAN
“24 Kegagalan Hardware 25 Kegagalan Software”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > METODE PENELITIAN
“Dari tahap identifikasi resiko terdapat 23 kemungkinan resiko yang mungkin dapat terjadi”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Abstract
“3 resiko level tinggi (kegagalan sistem jaringan, jaringan terputus, overload database, server down)”
§ ISS ANALISIS MANAJEMEN RISIKO APLIKASI SRIKANDI PADA > Abstract
“Terdapat 24 kemungkinan resiko, dengan 3 resiko level tinggi”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Irawati, A., Fadholi, H. B., Alamsyah, A. N., Dwipayana, D. P., & Muslih, M. (2021). Urgensi Cyber Law dalam Kehidupan Masyarakat Indonesia Di Era Digital. In Proceeding of Conference on Law and Social Studies.
- Rambi, J., & Sitikodna , M. (2022). Analisis Manajemen Resiko Aplikasi Rene Kasir di Restoran Oemah Djari Salatiga Menggunakan ISO 31000. Journal of Computer and Information Systems Ampera, 66-83.
- Utamajaya, J. N., Afrina, A., & Fitriah, A. N. (2021). Analisis Manajemen Risiko Teknologi Informasi Pada Perusahaan Toko Ujung Pandang Grosir Penajam Paser Utara Menggunakan Framework Iso 31000: 2018. Sebatik, 25(2), 326-334.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analisis Manajemen Risiko SI/TI Pada PT XYZ Menggunakan ISO 31000:2018
Hombing, N. M. B., Simanjuntak, W., Lubis, F. M. L. P., & Andayani, S. (2026) · Jurnal Komputer Informasi dan Teknologi · doi:10.53697/jkomitek.v6i1.4165
Metadata
- Authors
- Suawa, H. C. S., & Chernovita, H. P.
- Affiliations
- Satya Wacana Christian University (ID)
- Venue
- Edutik : Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi
- Publisher
- Manado State University
- Published
- 2023-10-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 604-616
- ISSN
- 2798-141X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408038591
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- id
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Edutik Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Quality and Management Systems
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- risk management, ISO 31000, digital archives, government information management, risk identification, risk assessment, risk response, public administration information systems, Manado City
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
