Ambidextrous Business Architecture Governance for Digital Government Transformation: A TOGAF 10-Based Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i5.1774Keywords:
Ambidextrous Business Architecture Governance, Business Architecture, Digital Government Transformation, SPBE Governance, TOGAF 10Abstract
Digital government transformation (DGT) through the electronic-based government system (SPBE) requires government organizations to maintain compliance while responding to emerging digital needs. In GovOrg, architecture governance remains documentation and approval-driven, whereas cross-unit process integration, AI-supported analysis, risk scoring, and business capability changes require a more adaptive governance approach. This study proposed an ambidextrous business architecture (BA) governance approach using TOGAF 10 to balance compliance and controlled adaptiveness in SPBE-based DGT. A qualitative single-case study was conducted using design science research methodology (DSRM), with selected TOGAF ADM phases guiding artifact development. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with three GovOrg stakeholders and document triangulation. The proposed artifacts include BA requirements, requirement impact assessment, governance decision model, governance guardrails, and governance processes aligned with selected TOGAF ADM phases. The proposed artifacts were preliminarily evaluated by three GovOrg stakeholders and an external IT governance and enterprise architecture expert, indicating their utility, feasibility, consistency, and contextual fit, while the findings remain preliminary and limited to the GovOrg case, requiring further evaluation across multiple public-sector organizations.
Downloads
References
[1] I. Mergel, N. Edelmann, and N. Haug, “Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 36, no. 4, Art. no. 101385, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.
[2] N. Haug, S. Dan, and I. Mergel, “Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1963–1987, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917.
[3] L. Tangi, M. Janssen, M. Benedetti, and G. Noci, “Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 60, Art. no. 102356, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356.
[4] Y. Gong, J. Yang, and X. Shi, “Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital transformation in government: Analysis of flexibility and enterprise architecture,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 37, no. 3, Art. no. 101487, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101487.
[5] G. Vial, “Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 118–144, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
[6] OECD, The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six Dimensions of a Digital Government. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2020, doi: 10.1787/f64fed2a-en.
[7] OECD, 2023 OECD Digital Government Index: Results and Key Findings. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2024, doi: 10.1787/1a89ed5e-en.
[8] Presiden Republik Indonesia, Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik, 2018.
[9] Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia, Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 2026 tentang Evaluasi Kinerja Pemerintah Digital. Indonesia, 2026.
[10] Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia, 2024 Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) Evaluation Report, 2024.
[11] Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia, “Kolaborasi jadi kunci menuju pemerintah digital berorientasi kepuasan pengguna,” Jul. 2025.
[12] Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia, “Kickoff pembinaan pemerintah digital (Pemdi) dan pemantauan sistem pemerintahan berbasis elektronik (SPBE) 2025,” 2025.
[13] T. Yulianto, C. Saleh, I. Noor, and S. Suryadi, “Policy implementation in the digital era: A comprehensive analysis of the electronic-based government system (SPBE) in Indonesia,” F1000Research, vol. 15, Art. no. 523, 2026, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.175463.1.
[14] A. S. Madaki, K. Ahmad, and D. Singh, “Information technology integration implementation in public sector organizations: Exploring challenges, opportunities, and future trends,” Inf. Dev., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1113–1128, 2024, doi: 10.1177/02666669241255661.
[15] K. S. R. Warner and M. Wäger, “Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal,” Long Range Plann., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 326–349, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001.
[16] D. Teece, M. Peteraf, and S. Leih, “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 13–35, 2016, doi: 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13.
[17] R. Mulyana, L. Rusu, and E. Perjons, “How hybrid IT governance mechanisms influence digital transformation and organizational performance in the banking and insurance industry of Indonesia,” in Proc. 31st Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. Dev. (ISD), Lisbon, Portugal, 2023, doi: 10.62036/ISD.2023.33.
[18] M. Pattij, R. van de Wetering, and R. Kusters, “Enhanced digital transformation supporting capabilities through enterprise architecture management: A fsQCA perspective,” Digit. Bus., vol. 2, no. 2, Art. no. 100036, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100036.
[19] The Open Group, TOGAF® Business Capabilities, 10th ed. Zaltbommel, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing, 2022.
[20] D. O’Higgins, “Impacts of business architecture in the context of digital transformation: An empirical study using PLS-SEM approach,” J. Bus. Manag. Stud., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 72–84, 2023, doi: 10.32996/jbms.2023.5.4.7.
[21] S. Kotusev and S. Kurnia, “The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 36, pp. 275–315, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0268396220977873.
[22] M. Muhaemin, E. Budiardjo, H. Santoso, and P. Putra, “Agile enterprise architecture in the context of digital transformation: A critical review,” J. Inf. Informatics Vis., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 271–288, 2026, doi: 10.62527/joiv.10.1.4666.
[23] M. Möhring, B. Keller, R. Schmidt, K. Sandkuhl, and A. Zimmermann, “Digitalization and enterprise architecture management: A perspective on benefits and challenges,” SN Bus. Econ., vol. 3, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s43546-023-00426-3.
[24] A. Q. Gill, “Adaptive enterprise architecture driven agile development,” in Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. Dev. (ISD 2015), Hong Kong, 2015.
[25] M. A. Rosso-Llopart, Minimally Viable Architecture: Architecture Early in Development. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2025, doi: 10.1184/R1/20362266.
[26] J. Jöhnk, P. Ollig, P. Rövekamp, and S. Oesterle, “Managing the complexity of digital transformation—How multiple concurrent initiatives foster hybrid ambidexterity,” Electron. Mark., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 547–569, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12525-021-00510-2.
[27] R. Mulyana, L. Rusu, and E. Perjons, “Key ambidextrous IT governance mechanisms for successful digital transformation: A case study of Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI),” Digit. Bus., vol. 4, no. 2, Art. no. 100083, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.digbus.2024.100083.
[28] J. Magnusson, D. Koutsikouri, and T. Päivärinta, “Efficiency creep and shadow innovation: Enacting ambidextrous IT governance in the public sector,” Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 329–349, 2020, doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1740617.
[29] R. Singh, A. Baird, and L. Mathiassen, “Ambidextrous governance of IT-enabled services: A pragmatic approach,” Inf. Organ., vol. 30, no. 4, Art. no. 100325, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100325.
[30] K. H. Rolland, G. Ghinea, and T.-M. Gronli, “Ambidextrous enterprise architecting: Betting on the future and hacking path-dependencies,” in Proc. 23rd Eur. Conf. Inf. Syst. (ECIS), 2015.
[31] R. Mulyana, “IT governance influence on digital transformation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm Univ., Stockholm, Sweden, 2025.
[32] N. N. Putri, R. Mulyana, and T. N. Adi, “Ambidextrous AI governance design based on COBIT 2019 traditional and DevOps for TelCo’s digital transformation,” TIERS Inf. Technol. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33–45, 2025, doi: 10.38043/tiers.v6i1.6610.
[33] L. A. D. Sari, R. Mulyana, and I. Y. Mukti, “A TOGAF 10-based enterprise architecture framework for digital transformation in SME banks,” J. Tek. Inform. (JUTIF), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 673–690, 2025, doi: 10.52436/1.jutif.2025.6.2.4329.
[34] The Open Group, TOGAF® Standard—Architecture Development Method, 10th ed. Zaltbommel, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing, 2022.
[35] F. F. Mumtaza, R. Mulyana, and I. Y. Mukti, “Utilizing TOGAF 10 to design an enterprise architecture for BPRBCo SME digital transformation,” in Proc. 2025 Int. Conf. Advancement in Data Sci., E-Learning Inf. Syst. (ICADEIS), Bandung, Indonesia, 2025, pp. 857–863, doi: 10.1109/ICADEIS65852.2025.10933402.
[36] Y. I. Alzoubi and A. Mishra, “Enterprise architecture contribution in distributed agile software development,” Syst. Eng., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 570–584, 2024, doi: 10.1002/sys.21739.
[37] A. Pancote, A. Souza, and C. P. da Veiga, “Enterprise architecture and building blocks: Steering digital transformation in dynamic environments,” Kybernetes, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2126–2150, 2025, doi: 10.1108/K-02-2024-0444.
[38] A. F. Satriadi, R. Mulyana, and R. Fauzi, “Agile IT service management design of FintechCo digitalization based on COBIT 2019 DevOps focus area,” J. Tek. Inform. (JUTIF), vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1165–1177, 2023, doi: 10.52436/1.jutif.2023.4.5.1304.
[39] R. Mulyana, L. Rusu, and E. Perjons, “The influence of hybrid agile-adaptive and traditional IT governance mechanisms on digital transformation and organizational performance in the Indonesian banking and insurance industries,” in Advances in Information Systems Development: Information Systems Development, Organizational Aspects, and Societal Trends, A. Rodrigues da Silva, M. Mira da Silva, J. Estima, C. Barry, M. Lang, H. Linger, and C. Schneider, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2024, pp. 173–197, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-57189-3_9.
[40] P. Hillmann, M. Kesseler, D. Schnell, G. Mihelcic, and A. Karcher, “Enterprise architecture governance of excellence,” in Proc. 26th Int. Conf. Enterprise Inf. Syst. (ICEIS), Angers, France, 2024, pp. 603–613, doi: 10.5220/0012399000003690.
[41] A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design science in information systems research,” MIS Q., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–105, 2004.
[42] K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee, “A design science research methodology for information systems research,” J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 45–77, 2007, doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
[43] M. Denscombe, The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th ed. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open Univ. Press, 2010.
[44] G. A. Bowen, “Document analysis as a qualitative research method,” Qual. Res. J., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27–40, 2009, doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
[45] P. I. Fusch and L. R. Ness, “Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research,” Qual. Rep., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1408–1416, 2015, doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281.
[46] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[47] L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, “Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
[48] A. K. Shenton, “Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects,” Educ. Inf., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 63–75, 2004, doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.
[49] R. van de Wetering, “The role of enterprise architecture-driven dynamic capabilities and operational digital ambidexterity in driving business value under the COVID-19 shock,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 11, Art. no. e11484, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11484.
[50] R. Foorthuis, M. van Steenbergen, S. Brinkkemper, and W. A. G. Bruls, “A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 541–564, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10796-014-9542-1.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author's Declaration
- The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
- The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
- The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
- The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
- If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
- The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights
