Main Article Content


This study aims to analyze aspects of the implementation of technology acceptance (SIMDA-integrated) in the surakarta city government. this study involved 6 participants in various areas of system users in surakarta city government, namely the department of communication, information, and security services; regional development planning, and research agencies; development administration and civil registry service. Qualitative data obtained research through interviews and observations to compile code, then build themes, and concepts about behavior. This study found that behavior regarding service quality, affective power, easy of use and usefulness is the reason employees use technology consistently. This study also found that inclusive attitudes, perceptions about system efficiency, the ability of employees to innovate, are means of building user awareness about the utilization of e-government in creating good governance. This study found that accountability is the impact of the intention of using the system, the intention of users in providing recommendations to other users, as well as the level of user awareness about the importance of e-government. Novelty produced in this study is about the model of measuring government accountability based on the behavior of system users in adopting the new system. Researcher provides recommendations on the importance of conducting periodic mentoring, training and socialization consistently, as well as increasing the intensity of the monitoring and evaluation process.


acceptance technology; user behavioral; information system; accountability

Article Details

How to Cite
Zai, S. N. P. (2021). User Behavior in The Acceptance of Technology on Regional Management Information System (SIMDA-Integrated) in Surakarta City Government. International Journal of Seocology, 2(03), 91–102.


  1. Abram, M. D., Mancini, K. T., & Parker, R. D. (2020). Methods to Integrate Natural Language Processing Into Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–6.
  2. Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2015). Why e-government projects fail?? An analysis of the Healthcare . gov website. Government Information Quarterly.
  3. Biswas, R., Jana, A., Arya, K., & Ramamritham, K. (2019). A good-governance framework for urban management. Journal of Urban Management, 8(2), 225–236.
  4. Cahyono, T. A., & Susanto, T. D. (2019). ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Acceptance Factors and User Design of Mobile e-Government Acceptance Factors and User Design of Mobile e-Government Website ( Study Case e-Government Website in Indonesia ) Website ( Study Case e-Government Website in Indonesia. Procedia Computer Science, 161, 90–98.
  5. Chatzivgeri, E., Chew, L., Crawford, L., Gordon, M., & Haslam, J. (2019). Critical Perspectives on Accounting Transparency and accountability for the global good?? The UK ’ s implementation of EU law requiring country-by-country reporting of payments to governments by extractives. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, xxxx.
  6. Chen, Y., Hu, L., Tseng, K., Juang, W., & Chang, C. (2019). Cross-boundary e-government systems?: Determinants of performance ?. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 449–459.
  7. Choi, T., & Meyers, S. (2020). Knowledge vacuum?: An organizational learning dynamic of how e- government innovations fail. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101416.
  8. Davis, F. B. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Model. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
  9. Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage.’ Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841.
  10. Gil-garcia, J. R., & Flores-zúñiga, M. Á. (2020). Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success?: Integrating implementation and adoption factors. 37(March).
  11. Guion, L. A. (1969). Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative Studies. Edis, 2002(6), 2–4.
  12. Harrison, T. M., & Sigit, D. (2014). Transparency , participation , and accountability practices in open government?: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly.
  13. Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1–5.
  14. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854.
  15. Kurniawan, F., Rakhmawati, A., & Tri, W. (2018). ScienceDirect Indonesia completeness on the web Indonesia local government Bali , information Indonesia local government completeness. Procedia Computer Science, 124, 21–28.
  16. Li, Y., & Shang, H. (2020). Information & Management Service quality , perceived value , and citizens ’ continuous-use intention regarding e-government?: Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 57(3), 103197.
  17. Mensah, I. K. (2020). E-Government Services Adoption: An Extension of the Unified Model of Electronic Government Adoption. SAGE Open, 10(2).
  18. Mitchell, J. I., Gagné, M., Beaudry, A., & Dyer, L. (2012). Computers in Human Behavior The role of perceived organizational support , distributive justice and motivation in reactions to new information technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 729–738.
  19. Munyoka, W. (2019). Electronic government adoption in voluntary environments – a case study of Zimbabwe.
  20. Sarasati, R., & Madyatmadja, E. D. (2020). Evaluation of e-government LAKSA services to improve the interest of use of applications using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 426, 012165.
  21. Sofyani, H., Riyadh, H. A., & Fahlevi, H. (2020). Improving service quality , accountability and transparency of local government?: The inter- vening role of information technology governance. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1).
  22. Susanto, P. (2017). Understanding E-money adoption: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(18), 335–345.
  23. Svärd, P. (2017). Accountability, transparency, and the role of information management. Enterprise Content Management, Records Management and Information Culture Amidst e-Government Development, 83–96.
  24. Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178.
  25. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  26. Walle, Yelkal Mulualem. (2020). Citizen Adoption of Digital-Government whistleblowing system initiatives in Ethiopian?: A validation of the Technology Acceptance Model ( TAM ) in Whistleblowing Systems success. Journal of Engineering and Computer Sciences (JECS), 21(1).
  27. Wang, C. (2017). Consumer acceptance of self-service technologies: An ability–willingness model. International Journal of Market Research, 59(6), 787–802.
  28. Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying Thematic Analysis to Education: A Hybrid Approach to Interpreting Data in Practitioner Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–9.
  29. Ziemba, E., Papaj, T., ?elazny, R., Jadamus-hacura, M., Ziemba, E. W. A., & Jadamus-hacura, M. (2016). Factors Influencing The Success Of E-Government E-GOVERNMENT. 4417(January).