Developing an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model: Evidence from Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia

Abstract

1234Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri, Jakarta, Indonesia Correspondence: [email protected]

Despite regulatory reforms, its implementation remains constrained by institutional and governance challenges at the local government level. This study aims to analyze the implementation of the Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency, identify the factors influencing its implementation, and develop an adaptive implementation model. A qualitative case study was conducted from 2025 to 2026, involving 21 purposively selected informants representing government agencies, technical experts, and community members. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, observations, and document analysis and analyzed using the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. The findings reveal that although the policy has been implemented in accordance with Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021, its effectiveness is constrained by institutional capacity, limited technical human resources, fragmented interagency coordination, suboptimal utilization of digital systems, budget constraints, and varying levels of public participation. Based on Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory, this study proposes an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model integrating policy content, implementation context, institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, public participation, and continuous feedback. The model enriches the application of Grindle's framework and provides practical guidance for improving Building Approval governance in Indonesian local governments.

Keywords: building approval policy; policy implementation; grindle; adaptive governance; collaborative governance.

Introduction

Building Approval (Persetujuan Bangunan Gedung [PBG]) is a strategic policy instrument for ensuring legal certainty, orderly spatial development, and effective public service delivery in Indonesia. Despite regulatory reforms, its implementation remains constrained by institutional and governance challenges at the local government level. This study aims to analyze the implementation of the Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency, identify the factors influencing its implementation, and develop an adaptive implementation model. A qualitative case study was conducted from 2025 to 2026, involving 21 purposively selected informants representing government agencies, technical experts, and community members. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, observations, and document analysis and analyzed using the interactive model of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña. The findings reveal that although the policy has been implemented in accordance with Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021, its effectiveness is constrained by institutional capacity, limited technical human resources, fragmented interagency coordination, suboptimal utilization of digital systems, budget constraints, and varying levels of public participation. Based on Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory, this study proposes an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model integrating policy content, implementation context, institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, public participation, and

continuous feedback. The model enriches the application of Grindle's framework and provides practical guidance for improving Building Approval governance in Indonesian local governments.

Building governance has become one of the fundamental pillars of sustainable urban development because it ensures legal certainty, public safety, environmental sustainability, and orderly spatial planning. Along with rapid urbanization, population growth, and increasing infrastructure development, governments worldwide are required to establish regulatory systems capable of balancing development acceleration with compliance to technical, environmental, and administrative standards. Consequently, building approval systems are no longer viewed merely as administrative licensing procedures but as strategic public policy instruments that support investment, protect public interests, strengthen governance quality, and improve public service performance. The increasing adoption of digital governance has further transformed building approval administration into a more transparent, efficient, and accountable public service process (Bank, 2023; Citaristi, 2022; Mergel et al., 2019). Therefore, improving the effectiveness of building approval implementation has become an important agenda in contemporary public administration, particularly in countries undergoing bureaucratic reform and digital transformation (Capano & Lepori, 2024; Fernández‐i‐Marín et al., 2024).

Recent developments in public administration indicate that policy implementation is increasingly influenced by institutional capacity, organizational adaptability, collaborative governance, and digital transformation rather than by regulatory compliance alone. Contemporary governance emphasizes that successful policy implementation depends not only on the quality of policy design but also on the ability of implementing organizations to coordinate multiple stakeholders, integrate digital systems, allocate adequate resources, and continuously adapt to emerging policy challenges (Domorenok et al., 2021; Khan & Hussain, 2024; Sullivan et al., 2025). In addition, collaborative governance has become an essential approach for improving policy effectiveness because complex public policies require active interaction among government institutions, private sectors, professional organizations, and citizens throughout the implementation process (Torres- Sandoval et al., 2025; Voets et al., 2021). These developments suggest that policy implementation should be understood as a dynamic governance process requiring institutional learning, adaptive coordination, and continuous feedback rather than merely administrative compliance.

In Indonesia, bureaucratic reform has substantially transformed the regulation of building administration through the enactment of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation and its implementing regulation, Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021 concerning Building Regulations. These reforms replaced the previous Building Permit (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan-IMB) system with the Building Approval (PBG) system as part of broader efforts to simplify licensing procedures, improve investment competitiveness, strengthen legal certainty, and enhance the quality of public services. The implementation of the Building Management Information System (Sistem Informasi Manajemen Bangunan Gedung-SIMBG) further reflects the Government's commitment to accelerating digital public services and improving transparency and accountability in building administration. Such reforms are consistent with international trends emphasizing digital governance as a critical mechanism for improving public sector performance and organizational effectiveness (Bank, 2023; Dicksan, 2026; Reynilda et al., 2025).

Despite substantial regulatory reforms, the

implementation of Building Approval policy remains challenging across many local governments in Indonesia. Previous empirical studies demonstrate that policy implementation continues to encounter institutional, administrative, and technical obstacles. Caesar et al. (2023) found that the implementation of building permit policy in Bekasi City was constrained by limited public understanding, insufficient human resources, and complex administrative procedures. Similarly, Simamora et al. (2024) reported that the implementation of Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021 in Natuna Regency was affected by limited institutional capacity, weak interagency coordination, and communication barriers among implementing organizations. Mutadi et al. (2025) also identified similar challenges in Bontang City, indicating that policy implementation effectiveness remains dependent on institutional readiness, organizational coordination, and administrative capacity. These findings indicate that although regulatory reforms have standardized the legal framework for Building Approval, implementation outcomes remain uneven because local governments possess different institutional capacities, governance arrangements, and resource availability.

Bandung Regency is one of the fastest-growing regions in West Java Province, characterized by rapid urban expansion, industrial development, and increasing residential construction. Consequently, the demand for Building Approval (PBG) services has increased substantially following the implementation of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021. Administrative records indicate that the number of PBG applications increased from 219 in 2021 to 2,173 in 2025. However, implementation performance has remained inconsistent. Completion rates fluctuated from 30.59% in 2021 to 48.78% in 2022, increased to 67.83% in 2023, declined to 53.42% in 2024, and improved again to 71.43% in 2025. Meanwhile, unresolved applications remained relatively high, reaching 152 cases in 2021, 967 in 2022, 629 in 2023, 1,136 in 2024, and 621 in 2025. These findings indicate that the increasing demand for Building Approval services has not been accompanied by proportional improvements in institutional capacity, interagency coordination, technical human resources, digital governance, and public compliance, thereby demonstrating the need for a more adaptive implementation framework.

Policy implementation has long been recognized as one of the most critical stages in the public policy process because the achievement of policy objectives ultimately depends on how policies are translated into concrete actions by implementing organizations. Although policy formulation establishes strategic directions, implementation determines whether policy outputs generate meaningful public outcomes. Consequently, policy implementation has evolved from a bureaucratic administrative perspective toward a broader governance perspective that emphasizes institutional capacity, organizational coordination, stakeholder interaction, and adaptive governance (Capano & Lepori, 2024; Sager & Gofen, 2022). Recent studies further argue that implementation effectiveness is increasingly influenced by policy capacity, organizational learning, and digital transformation, particularly in complex public service environments where multiple actors and institutions interact simultaneously (Fernández‐i‐Marín et al., 2024; Khan & Hussain, 2024).

Numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain policy implementation. Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) emphasized that implementation success depends on policy standards, available resources, communication, characteristics of implementing agencies, implementers' disposition, and external socio-political conditions. Edwards (1980) proposed four principal determinants of implementation success, namely communication, resources, bureaucratic structure, and implementers' disposition.

Meanwhile, Matland (1995) introduced the Ambiguity Conflict Model, arguing that implementation outcomes are shaped by the interaction between policy ambiguity and political conflict. Although these theories remain highly influential, they primarily focus on explaining factors affecting implementation success rather than addressing institutional adaptation required for increasingly dynamic governance environments (Edwards, 1980; Matland, 1995; Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975). These frameworks therefore provide valuable explanatory perspectives but remain limited in capturing the complexity of digital public service transformation and collaborative governance arrangements.

Considering the characteristics of Building Approval policy implementation, this study adopts Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory as its principal analytical framework. Grindle (2017) argues that policy implementation is determined by the interaction between the content of policy and the context of implementation. The content of policy includes policy objectives, expected benefits, the extent of change introduced, decision-making arrangements, implementing organizations, and resource allocation. Meanwhile, the context of implementation encompasses institutional characteristics, power relations, stakeholder interests, organizational commitment, and administrative responsiveness that collectively influence implementation outcomes (Grindle, 2017). Compared with other implementation theories, Grindle's framework provides a more comprehensive perspective because it simultaneously considers policy substance and the institutional environment in which implementation occurs. This theoretical perspective is particularly relevant for analyzing Building Approval policy, whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, professional experts, digital platforms, regulatory compliance, and interactions between government and citizens.

Nevertheless, recent developments in public administration indicate that successful policy implementation can no longer be explained solely through policy content and implementation context. Digital transformation has fundamentally changed the governance of public services by introducing integrated information systems, data-driven decision-making, organizational innovation, and technologyenabled collaboration (Mergel et al., 2019; Noviany, 2024). Similarly, collaborative governance has emerged as a strategic approach for addressing increasingly complex policy problems through cooperation among government institutions, private actors, professional organizations, and communities (Voets et al., 2021) (Sullivan et al., 2025). Furthermore, adaptive governance emphasizes institutional learning, continuous feedback, and organizational flexibility as essential mechanisms for responding to changing policy environments (Capano et al., 2025). These developments suggest that contemporary policy implementation requires analytical frameworks capable of integrating institutional adaptation with collaborative and digital governance dimensions.

Previous empirical studies concerning Building Approval and building permit policies have largely focused on evaluating implementation effectiveness or identifying implementation barriers. Caesar et al. (2023) highlighted deficiencies in public awareness, administrative procedures, and human resource capacity in Bekasi City. Simamora et al. (2024) emphasized communication barriers, institutional limitations, and bureaucratic coordination in Natuna Regency, whereas Mutadi et al. (2025) identified organizational readiness and institutional capacity as key determinants of implementation effectiveness in Bontang City. Although these studies provide valuable empirical insights, they predominantly evaluate existing implementation conditions without proposing an integrated implementation model

capable of strengthening institutional adaptation within rapidly evolving governance environments. Consequently, the interaction between policy content, implementation context, collaborative governance, digital governance, and adaptive institutional learning remains insufficiently explored in the existing literature.

Based on the foregoing discussion, this study argues that the implementation of Building Approval policy should be understood not merely as regulatory compliance but as a dynamic governance process requiring institutional adaptation, interorganizational collaboration, technological integration, and continuous policy learning. Accordingly, Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory provides an appropriate analytical foundation for explaining the relationship between policy substance and implementation context, while the incorporation of collaborative governance, digital governance, institutional capacity, and adaptive feedback mechanisms enables a more comprehensive understanding of policy implementation in contemporary local government settings. This perspective forms the theoretical basis for developing an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model capable of strengthening the effectiveness, responsiveness, and sustainability of Building Approval implementation in Indonesian local governments.

Despite the growing body of literature on policy implementation and building regulation, several important research gaps remain unresolved. First, previous studies have primarily examined Building Approval or Building Permit implementation by identifying administrative constraints, organizational limitations, and implementation performance within specific local government contexts (Caesar et al., 2023; Mutadi et al., 2025; Simamora et al., 2024). Although these studies provide valuable empirical evidence, they generally focus on describing implementation outcomes rather than explaining how implementation systems can continuously adapt to changing institutional environments. Consequently, the existing literature provides limited guidance for developing adaptive implementation strategies capable of improving longterm policy effectiveness.

Second, policy implementation studies have traditionally relied on classical implementation theories such as Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), Edwards (1980), Matland (1995), and Grindle (2017). While these theories remain highly relevant for explaining implementation processes, most empirical applications continue to analyze policy implementation through relatively static institutional perspectives. Recent developments in public administration demonstrate that digital transformation, collaborative governance, organizational learning, and policy capacity have fundamentally reshaped the implementation environment, requiring analytical frameworks capable of explaining institutional adaptation in increasingly dynamic governance systems (Capano & Lepori, 2024; Domorenok et al., 2021; Khan & Hussain, 2024). However, these contemporary governance dimensions have rarely been integrated into studies of Building Approval policy implementation.

Third, previous studies have generally evaluated implementation performance based on compliance with regulations or administrative effectiveness without proposing an integrated implementation model that simultaneously considers policy substance, implementation context, institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, stakeholder participation, and continuous policy learning. As a result, existing implementation frameworks remain limited in explaining how local governments can strengthen institutional resilience and continuously improve implementation performance under changing regulatory and organizational conditions (Capano et al., 2025; Sullivan et al., 2025; Whitsel et al., 2024).

To clarify the contribution of this study, the identified

Based on these considerations, this study proposes an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model derived from empirical findings obtained through qualitative analysis. Unlike previous studies that primarily evaluated implementation performance or identified implementation barriers, the proposed model integrates the dimensions of policy content and implementation context from Grindle's framework with adaptive governance principles, thereby providing a more comprehensive explanation of policy implementation in the context of digital public services and local government governance. Rather than replacing Grindle's theory, this study refines its application by incorporating contemporary governance dimensions that emerge from

empirical evidence.

The findings of this study are expected to contribute to both theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, the study enriches the application of Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory by demonstrating the importance of institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, stakeholder participation, and adaptive feedback in explaining Building Approval policy implementation. From a practical perspective, the proposed implementation model provides policy recommendations for improving institutional coordination, strengthening digital public services, enhancing organizational capacity, and supporting more effective Building Approval governance in Indonesian local governments.

Accordingly, the objectives of this study are: (1) to analyze the implementation of Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency; (2) to identify the policy content and implementation context factors influencing implementation effectiveness based on Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory; and (3) to develop an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model capable of strengthening institutional performance, collaborative governance, digital governance, and sustainable public service delivery

Methods

This study employed a qualitative case study design to obtain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of the Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency and to develop an adaptive implementation model grounded in empirical evidence. A qualitative case study was considered appropriate because the implementation of Building Approval policy involves complex interactions among policy actors, institutional arrangements, administrative procedures, digital governance, and stakeholder participation that cannot be adequately explained using quantitative approaches alone (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The case study focused on Bandung Regency because it represents one of the fastest-growing regions in West Java Province, where the implementation of Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021 has experienced substantial increases in Building Approval applications while simultaneously facing institutional and administrative challenges.

The analytical framework of this study was based on Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory, which explains that implementation effectiveness is influenced by the interaction between policy content and implementation context (Grindle, 2017). These two dimensions served as the primary analytical categories during data collection and analysis. Nevertheless, the analysis remained open to the emergence of new empirical categories through qualitative coding, allowing institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, public participation, and adaptive feedback mechanisms to emerge inductively from the field data.

The research was conducted between January 2025 and June 2026 at the Department of Investment and One-Stop Integrated Services (DPMPTSP) of Bandung Regency and other institutions directly involved in Building Approval implementation. The study involved 21 purposively selected informants representing organizations responsible for policy implementation and stakeholders directly affected by the policy. The informants consisted of officials from DPMPTSP, the Public Works and Spatial Planning Office (DPUPR), the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda), the Environmental Agency (DLH), members of the Professional Expert Team (TPT), SIMBG administrators, and Building Approval applicants (see Table 2). Purposive sampling was employed because these informants possessed direct knowledge and practical experience regarding Building Approval implementation, institutional coordination, technical verification, and public

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and document analysis. Semistructured interviews enabled participants to explain their experiences and perceptions regarding policy implementation while allowing the researcher to explore emerging issues during the interview process. Each interview lasted approximately 45-90 minutes, was conducted with participants’ consent, and was audio-recorded to ensure data accuracy. Observation was undertaken to understand the implementation process directly, including administrative procedures, interagency coordination, and the utilization of the Building Management Information System (SIMBG). Documentary evidence comprised Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021, institutional reports, Building Approval administrative records, statistical reports, service performance documents, and other official publications relevant to policy implementation. The integration of multiple data sources enabled methodological triangulation and strengthened the credibility of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Data analysis followed the interactive model proposed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2020), consisting of data condensation, data display, conclusion drawing, and verification. The analytical process began with verbatim transcription of interview recordings, followed by repeated reading to obtain familiarity with the data. Open coding was subsequently performed to identify meaningful concepts emerging from interview transcripts, field observations, and documentary evidence. Related codes were then organized through axial coding to establish conceptual relationships among categories, whereas selective coding was employed to integrate these categories into broader implementation themes. Throughout the analysis, the dimensions of policy content and implementation context proposed by Grindle (2017) functioned as the primary analytical framework, while

additional themes related to institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, stakeholder participation, and adaptive feedback were retained whenever they consistently emerged from empirical evidence. These thematic relationships subsequently formed the basis for developing the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, the study adopted the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), namely credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility was enhanced through prolonged engagement, triangulation of interviews, observations, and documentary evidence, as well as member checking with selected participants to verify the accuracy of interpretations. Transferability was supported through detailed descriptions of the research context and participants. Dependability was maintained by documenting all stages of data collection and analysis, thereby providing a transparent audit trail. Confirmability was achieved by maintaining analytical memos, preserving original interview transcripts, and continuously comparing interpretations across multiple data sources to minimize researcher bias.

This research adhered to ethical principles governing qualitative inquiry. Prior to participation, all informants received information regarding the objectives of the research, the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality protection, and the right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before interviews commenced. Personal identities were anonymized throughout the research process, and all collected data were used exclusively for academic purposes in accordance with accepted ethical standards for qualitative research (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Formal ethical approval was not required because this study involved no medical intervention or experimentation on human subjects. Nevertheless, the study adhered to accepted ethical standards for qualitative social research. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, participation was voluntary, confidentiality was maintained, and all personal identifiers were anonymized throughout the study.

Result and Discussion

Empirical Overview of Building Approval Policy Implementation

The empirical findings indicate that the implementation of the Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency has generally followed the regulatory framework established under Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021. The introduction of the Building Management Information System (SIMBG) has standardized administrative procedures and improved transparency in the processing of building approval applications. Nevertheless, compliance with regulatory requirements has not always translated into effective implementation because the increasing demand for Building Approval services has exceeded the institutional capacity of implementing agencies.

Administrative records demonstrate a substantial increase in Building Approval applications during the observation period. The statistical data were obtained from the official Building Approval administrative database maintained by the Department of Investment and One-Stop Integrated Services (DPMPTSP) of Bandung Regency. The reported figures represent submitted Building Approval applications and officially completed approvals recorded in the annual PBG administrative reports for the period 2021–2025. The number of applications increased from 219 applications in 2021 to 1,888 applications in 2022, 1,955 applications in 2023, 2,439 applications in 2024, and 2,173 applications in 2025.

Although the number of Building Approval certificates issued also increased, implementation performance fluctuated considerably. The completion rate improved from 30.59% in 2021 to 48.78% in 2022 and 67.83% in 2023, declined to 53.42% in 2024, and subsequently increased to 71.43% in 2025. These fluctuations indicate that improvements in service performance were not linear and were influenced by institutional readiness, workload, and organizational capacity rather than by regulatory reform alone.

The documentary analysis further revealed a persistent backlog of applications throughout the study period. The number of unresolved applications reached 152 cases in 2021, 967 cases in 2022, 629 cases in 2023, 1,136 cases in 2024, and 621 cases in 2025. These findings suggest that the implementation system has experienced recurring capacity constraints, particularly during periods of increasing application volume. Consequently, implementation effectiveness cannot be assessed solely through procedural compliance but must also consider the ability of implementing institutions to respond to growing administrative demands.

Evidence obtained from interviews with government officials and technical personnel corroborated these documentary findings. Informants consistently explained that application delays were primarily associated with incomplete technical documents submitted by applicants, shortages of certified technical personnel, repeated revisions during technical verification, and coordination challenges among institutions involved in Building Approval services. In addition, several informants emphasized that although SIMBG had improved administrative transparency, its effectiveness remained dependent on users' digital literacy, institutional preparedness, and the availability of competent technical staff. The convergence of documentary evidence, interview data, and field observations therefore indicates that implementation performance is shaped by the interaction between regulatory requirements and institutional implementation capacity rather than by legal compliance alone. One DPMPTSP official explained:

“The increasing number of applications has not been matched by the availability of certified technical personnel. Consequently, technical verification often requires additional time before approval can be issued.” (DPM2)

Overall, the empirical findings demonstrate that Building Approval implementation in Bandung Regency has progressed positively since the introduction of Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021, particularly through the adoption of SIMBG and the gradual improvement of completion rates. However, the persistence of fluctuating service performance and unresolved applications indicates that implementation effectiveness remains constrained by organizational, technical, and institutional factors. These empirical patterns provide the basis for a deeper analysis using Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory, particularly the dimensions of policy content and implementation context, which are presented in the following sections.

Analysis of Policy Content

Following Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory, the first stage of analysis examined the content of policy, which refers to the substantive characteristics of the Building Approval policy influencing implementation. The analysis identified six interrelated dimensions: interests affected, type of benefits, extent of change envisioned, site of decision-making, program implementers, and resources committed. These dimensions emerged consistently across interviews, documentary evidence, and field observations and collectively explain how the design of the Building Approval policy influences implementation performance.

The findings indicate that the policy accommodates

multiple stakeholder interests. For the local government, the policy strengthens legal certainty, spatial planning control, and public accountability. For the community and investors, the policy provides legal recognition of building ownership while improving certainty regarding administrative procedures. However, differences in stakeholder expectations occasionally generated implementation challenges, particularly when applicants expected rapid approval despite incomplete administrative and technical requirements. Consequently, balancing regulatory compliance with service responsiveness became an important consideration for implementing agencies.

Regarding the type of benefits, the findings demonstrate that the Building Approval policy has generated significant administrative improvements through the digitalization of licensing services using SIMBG.

A SIMBG administrator stated: “SIMBG has significantly improved administrative transparency. However, many applicants still experience difficulties in uploading technical documents correctly, resulting in repeated revisions.” (SIM1). Informants acknowledged that digital administration has reduced opportunities for procedural inconsistency, increased transparency, and improved document traceability. Nevertheless, these benefits have not been experienced equally because implementation effectiveness continues to depend on institutional capacity, technical competence, and users' ability to utilize digital systems effectively.

Analysis of Implementation Context

The second analytical dimension of Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory focuses on the implementation context, which explains how institutional conditions, organizational relationships, political interests, and administrative responsiveness influence policy implementation. The empirical findings demonstrate that the effectiveness of Building Approval (PBG) implementation in Bandung Regency is shaped not only by the policy itself but also by the institutional environment in which it is implemented. Four interrelated dimensions emerged from the analysis, namely institutional characteristics, power and stakeholder interests, compliance and responsiveness, and inter-organizational coordination.

Institutional Characteristics

The findings reveal that the institutional structure responsible for Building Approval implementation has generally complied with the provisions of Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021. The implementation process involves multiple agencies, including the Department of Investment and One-Stop Integrated Services (DPMPTSP), the Public Works and Spatial Planning Office (DPUPR), the Professional Expert Team (TPT), the Environmental Agency (DLH), and other supporting institutions. While this institutional arrangement enables technical specialization, it also increases the complexity of coordination because each institution performs different statutory functions throughout the approval process.

Document analysis and field observations indicate that institutional capacity remains uneven across implementing organizations. One DPUPR official explained:

“Our technical staff are required to verify a growing number of applications, while the number of certified personnel has remained relatively unchanged.” (PUPR3)

The increasing number of applications has not been matched by proportional growth in technical personnel, certified building experts, or administrative staff. As a result, technical verification and document review frequently require longer processing times, particularly when multiple revisions are necessary before approval can be issued. These conditions demonstrate that organizational capacity constitutes a critical determinant of implementation effectiveness.

Power and Stakeholder Interests

The implementation of the Building Approval policy involves multiple stakeholders with different institutional responsibilities and interests. Government agencies seek to ensure legal compliance, public safety, and orderly spatial planning, whereas applicants generally expect a licensing process that is efficient, transparent, and predictable. The Professional Expert Team emphasizes compliance with technical standards, while investors and property owners often prioritize processing speed to support development activities. An applicant described the situation as follows:

“We expected the approval process to be completed quickly, but several documents had to be revised because we did not fully understand the technical requirements.” (APP2)

Interview findings indicate that these differing expectations occasionally create implementation tensions. Several informants explained that applicants frequently expect accelerated approval even when required technical documents remain incomplete. Conversely, implementing agencies must ensure that every application satisfies engineering, environmental, and legal requirements before approval is granted. Consequently, policy implementation requires continuous negotiation between administrative efficiency and regulatory compliance.

Compliance and Administrative Responsiveness

The findings further indicate that implementation effectiveness depends significantly on the level of compliance demonstrated by applicants as well as the responsiveness of implementing agencies. Documentary evidence shows that a considerable proportion of application delays originated from incomplete administrative documents, revisions of architectural drawings, and deficiencies in technical supporting documents. Such conditions increase the workload of implementing agencies because applications must repeatedly undergo administrative and technical verification before approval can be finalized.

Despite these challenges, observations and interview data suggest that implementing agencies have undertaken several adaptive measures to improve service responsiveness. A DPMPTSP officer noted: “We now provide technical consultations before applicants submit their documents, which has reduced the number of incomplete applications.” (DPM4)

These include strengthening applicant assistance, providing technical consultations, improving the utilization of the Building Management Information System (SIMBG), and enhancing communication between applicants and technical officers. Informants consistently acknowledged that these initiatives have contributed to gradual improvements in service quality, although their effectiveness remains dependent on institutional capacity and applicant readiness.

Inter-Organizational Coordination

Another significant finding concerns the role of interorganizational coordination in Building Approval implementation. Because the approval process requires contributions from multiple agencies, effective communication and information exchange become essential for ensuring procedural efficiency. The study found that coordination has improved following the implementation of SIMBG, particularly through integrated document management and electronic information sharing. A member of the Professional Expert Team explained: “Coordination among agencies has become easier through SIMBG, although technical clarification between institutions is still occasionally required.” (TPT2). Nevertheless, coordination challenges continue to occur during technical verification,

especially when different agencies interpret technical regulations differently or when supporting documents require repeated clarification.

The empirical evidence therefore indicates that coordination should not be understood merely as administrative communication but as a continuous governance process requiring institutional commitment, shared understanding, and collaborative problem-solving among implementing organizations. Strengthening collaborative mechanisms is therefore considered essential for improving implementation consistency and reducing administrative delays.

Synthesis of Implementation Context

Overall, the analysis demonstrates that the implementation context substantially influences the effectiveness of Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency. Institutional capacity limitations, differences in stakeholder interests, varying levels of applicant compliance, and the complexity of inter-agency coordination collectively shape implementation outcomes. These findings confirm Grindle's proposition that implementation success is determined not only by policy design but also by the institutional environment in which the policy operates. However, the empirical evidence also suggests that contemporary Building Approval implementation extends beyond Grindle's original framework because digital governance, institutional learning, and collaborative coordination increasingly function as critical mechanisms for improving implementation performance. These emerging dimensions form the basis for the development of the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model, presented in the subsequent section. Emergent Themes and Development of the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model

The final stage of data analysis sought to identify empirical themes emerging beyond the analytical dimensions of policy content and implementation context proposed by Grindle (2017). While these two dimensions provided the primary analytical framework, the coding process revealed several recurring themes that consistently appeared across interview transcripts, documentary evidence, and field observations. These themes were identified through an iterative process of data condensation, coding, categorization, and thematic interpretation following the procedures proposed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2020). Rather than introducing a new policy implementation theory, these themes represent contextual factors that strengthen the practical application of Grindle's framework within the implementation of Building Approval policy.

Institutional Capacity

The first emergent theme concerns institutional capacity, which consistently appeared throughout the interviews. Informants emphasized that the effectiveness of Building Approval implementation depends largely on the availability of qualified human resources, organizational competence, technical expertise, and administrative support. Although regulatory reform has standardized licensing procedures through the Building Management Information System (SIMBG), implementation remains constrained when technical personnel are insufficient or when institutional workloads exceed organizational capacity. Documentary evidence showing fluctuations in application completion rates further supports this finding, indicating that institutional performance is closely associated with the ability of implementing agencies to manage increasing service demand.

Collaborative Governance

The second theme relates to collaborative governance. The

empirical findings indicate that Building Approval implementation cannot be performed by a single institution because technical verification requires continuous interaction among DPMPTSP, DPUPR, the Professional Expert Team (TPT), the Environmental Agency, and other relevant stakeholders. Interviews consistently revealed that effective coordination, shared understanding of technical standards, and timely information exchange contribute significantly to reducing administrative delays. Conversely, weak coordination frequently resulted in duplicated verification, inconsistent technical interpretation, and prolonged processing time. These findings demonstrate that collaboration functions as a practical mechanism for improving policy implementation across institutional boundaries.

Digital Governance

Another important theme emerging from the data is digital governance. The implementation of SIMBG has significantly improved transparency, document management, and service accessibility by integrating administrative processes into a digital platform. Informants acknowledged that applicants are now able to monitor application progress more transparently than under the previous licensing system. Nevertheless, the findings also indicate that digitalization alone does not guarantee implementation effectiveness. Limited digital literacy among applicants, varying technological capabilities across implementing institutions, and occasional system constraints continue to influence service performance. Therefore, digital governance should be understood as an enabling instrument whose effectiveness depends on institutional readiness and user capability.

Public Participation and Compliance

The analysis further identified public participation and compliance as important determinants of implementation effectiveness. Most implementation delays were associated with incomplete administrative documents, revisions of technical drawings, or insufficient understanding of regulatory requirements by applicants. Field observations indicate that applicants who actively sought technical consultation and complied with administrative procedures generally experienced faster processing than those who submitted incomplete documentation. These findings suggest that implementation effectiveness depends not only on government performance but also on the willingness and capacity of citizens to comply with established procedures.

Adaptive Feedback and Institutional Learning

The final emergent theme concerns adaptive feedback and institutional learning. Interviews revealed that implementing agencies continuously adjusted administrative procedures based on operational experience, applicant feedback, and recurring implementation challenges. Examples include improvements in technical consultation services, refinement of internal coordination mechanisms, optimization of SIMBG utilization, and periodic evaluation of implementation procedures. These adaptive practices indicate that implementation is not a static administrative activity but rather a continuous learning process through which institutions gradually improve policy performance in response to evolving implementation challenges.

Development of the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model

The synthesis of documentary evidence, interview findings, and field observations demonstrates that the implementation of Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency cannot be adequately explained solely through the dimensions of policy content and implementation context proposed by Grindle (2017). Although these dimensions

remain fundamental for understanding policy implementation, the empirical findings consistently indicate that implementation effectiveness is further strengthened by institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, public participation, and adaptive feedback mechanisms. These factors emerged inductively from the qualitative analysis and explain how implementing organizations respond to increasingly dynamic administrative and governance environments.

Accordingly, this study develops an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model that retains Grindle's theoretical foundation while incorporating empirically derived governance dimensions (see Figure 1). The proposed model does not replace Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory; instead, it extends its practical application by demonstrating how policy implementation evolves through institutional adaptation, collaboration, technological integration, stakeholder engagement, and continuous organizational learning. The model therefore represents an empirically grounded refinement of policy implementation practice within the context of Building Approval services in Indonesian local government.

The model begins with the interaction between policy content and implementation context, as conceptualized by Grindle. These two dimensions establish the institutional and regulatory foundation for implementation. The empirical findings indicate that successful implementation subsequently depends on the capacity of organizations to strengthen institutional resources, develop collaborative relationships among implementing agencies, optimize digital governance through SIMBG, encourage public compliance, and institutionalize adaptive feedback mechanisms. The interaction among these elements ultimately contributes to more responsive, transparent, efficient, and sustainable Building Approval implementation.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that adaptive implementation represents a continuous governance process rather than a one-time administrative activity. The proposed model therefore provides a practical framework for strengthening Building Approval implementation in Bandung Regency and offers broader implications for improving policy implementation in other Indonesian local governments experiencing similar institutional and administrative challenges. Policy Content as the Foundation of Building Approval Policy Implementation

The increasing number of Building Approval applications between 2021 and 2025 may reflect several concurrent factors, including regulatory reforms following Government Regulation No. 16 of 2021, rapid urban development, strengthened administrative requirements, and increasing public awareness of legal compliance. Interview findings further suggest that greater public understanding of the importance of Building Approval has contributed to the rising number of applications, although this cannot be interpreted as the sole explanatory factor.

The empirical findings reveal that the complexity of administrative and technical requirements has become one of the principal implementation challenges. Applicants are required to submit architectural drawings, structural calculations, environmental documents, and other technical requirements before Building Approval certificates can be issued. While these requirements enhance legal certainty and building safety, they simultaneously increase the administrative burden on applicants with limited technical knowledge. This finding is consistent with Capano and Lepori (2024), who argue that policy effectiveness is strongly influenced by the compatibility between policy design and the implementation capacity of target groups. Similarly,

Capano et al. (2025) emphasize that implementation performance depends not only on regulatory quality but also on the extent to which policy instruments are practically applicable within complex institutional environments.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that the benefits generated by the Building Approval policy are distributed unevenly among stakeholders. Applicants with greater financial resources and access to professional consultants generally complete the licensing process more efficiently than individual citizens who lack technical or financial capacity. Such findings reinforce the argument of Sager and Gofen (2022) that policy benefits frequently vary according to the institutional and socio-economic capacities of target groups, thereby requiring governments to provide adaptive implementation mechanisms that reduce inequalities in policy access. Therefore, the results suggest that strengthening technical assistance, simplifying administrative procedures, and improving public guidance are essential strategies for enhancing policy effectiveness without compromising regulatory compliance.

Implementation Context and Institutional Capacity

Beyond policy content, this study demonstrates that implementation effectiveness is strongly shaped by the institutional context within which the policy is executed. The empirical evidence indicates that Building Approval implementation involves multiple government agencies, including DPMPTSP, DPUPR, the Professional Expert Team (TPT), and several supporting institutions. Consequently, implementation performance depends not only on the

responsibilities of individual organizations but also on the quality of coordination among implementing agencies. This finding is consistent with Grindle (2017), who emphasizes that implementation context including institutional characteristics, power relationships, administrative commitment, and organizational capacity plays a decisive role in determining policy outcomes.

The findings further reveal that institutional capacity remains one of the most significant constraints affecting Building Approval implementation. The increasing number of applications has not been accompanied by proportional improvements in certified technical personnel, administrative resources, or institutional infrastructure. Consequently, technical verification frequently requires repeated revisions, thereby extending processing times and contributing to administrative backlogs. These findings support the conclusions of Domorenok et al. (2021), who argue that institutional capacity represents one of the strongest determinants of implementation success because effective implementation requires adequate human resources, organizational competence, and administrative flexibility.

Similarly, Whitsel et al. (2024) emphasize that implementation performance should be evaluated through organizational responsiveness rather than solely through procedural compliance. This perspective is reflected in the present study, where implementation delays were not primarily caused by deficiencies in legal regulations but by institutional limitations in responding to increasing service demands. Likewise, Khuroshvili (2025) argues that implementation effectiveness increasingly depends on adaptive institutional

management capable of responding to changing administrative Table 3. Coding Matrix

One of the most important findings emerging from this study concerns the strategic contribution of collaborative governance to Building Approval implementation. Although Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021 clearly specifies institutional responsibilities, empirical evidence demonstrates that implementation effectiveness largely depends upon collaboration among multiple implementing organizations. The interaction between DPMPTSP, DPUPR, DLH, the Professional Expert Team, and applicants creates a governance network in which information sharing, joint problem-solving, and institutional coordination become essential components of implementation success.

These findings strongly support the collaborative governance framework proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008), which argues that public policy implementation becomes more effective when government agencies, professional organizations, and stakeholders participate in collaborative decision-making processes. Similarly, Voets et al. (2021) demonstrate that collaborative governance strengthens implementation capacity by improving institutional communication, reducing administrative fragmentation, and facilitating collective problem-solving. The present findings further confirm the argument of Sullivan et al. (2025) that inter-organizational collaboration has become increasingly important within contemporary public administration because complex public policies can rarely be implemented effectively through hierarchical government structures alone.

Digital transformation also emerged as a critical factor influencing implementation performance. The implementation of the Building Management Information System (SIMBG) has significantly improved administrative transparency, document traceability, and public accessibility to Building Approval services. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that digital governance alone does not automatically improve implementation effectiveness because technological innovation remains dependent upon institutional readiness and user capability. These findings are consistent with Mergel et al. (2019), who argue that digital government should be understood as organizational transformation rather than merely technological modernization. Similar conclusions were reached by Abdurrahman et al. (2024) and Noviany (2024), who emphasize that successful digital transformation requires competent human resources, institutional adaptation, and continuous organizational learning.

Theoretical Contribution and Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model

The principal theoretical contribution of this study lies in refining the practical application of Grindle’s Policy Implementation Theory within the context of Building Approval governance in Indonesia. The empirical findings confirm that the dimensions of policy content and implementation context remain fundamental in explaining implementation performance. However, the study also demonstrates that contemporary policy implementation increasingly depends on complementary governance dimensions that were consistently identified through empirical analysis, namely institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, stakeholder participation, and adaptive organizational learning.

Accordingly, this study proposes the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model, which integrates Grindle's theoretical framework with empirically derived implementation factors. Rather than introducing a new implementation theory, the proposed model extends the operational application of Grindle's framework by illustrating how adaptive institutional management strengthens implementation effectiveness in dynamic governance environments. This finding is consistent with recent implementation studies emphasizing that policy success is increasingly influenced by organizational adaptability, interinstitutional collaboration, technological integration, and continuous institutional learning (Capano et al., 2025; Khuroshvili, 2025; Sullivan et al., 2025).

The proposed model was developed through an iterative qualitative coding process involving open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Emerging themes were subsequently mapped into conceptual components of the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model (see Table 3).

From a practical perspective, the proposed model offers strategic guidance for local governments seeking to improve Building Approval implementation. Strengthening institutional capacity, enhancing inter-agency collaboration, expanding digital governance, improving public participation, and institutionalizing adaptive evaluation mechanisms are expected to increase administrative efficiency, reduce implementation delays, and improve service quality. Consequently, the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model contributes not only to the advancement of policy implementation scholarship but also to the development of more responsive, transparent, and sustainable public service governance in Indonesia.

Conclusion

This study examined the implementation of the Building Approval policy in Bandung Regency using Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory and developed an Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model grounded in empirical evidence collected between 2025 and 2026. The conclusion is organized according to the three research objectives to ensure that the principal findings directly answer the research questions.

First, the study demonstrates that the implementation of the Building Approval policy has generally complied with the legal and administrative framework established under Government Regulation Number 16 of 2021. Nevertheless, empirical findings indicate that implementation effectiveness remains uneven. While the introduction of the Building Management Information System (SIMBG) has improved administrative transparency and standardized licensing procedures, fluctuations in application completion rates and the persistence of service backlogs indicate that regulatory compliance alone is insufficient to achieve effective policy

implementation. These findings confirm that implementation outcomes are influenced by the interaction between policy content and implementation context, consistent with Grindle's policy implementation framework.

Second, the study identifies five principal factors shaping Building Approval implementation in Bandung Regency: institutional capacity, collaborative governance, digital governance, public participation, and adaptive organizational learning. Among these factors, institutional capacity and interorganizational coordination emerged as the most influential determinants of implementation effectiveness. Limited technical personnel, fragmented coordination among implementing agencies, varying digital capabilities, and incomplete applicant documentation remain major constraints affecting service performance. Conversely, strengthened institutional collaboration, effective utilization of SIMBG, continuous technical assistance, and improved stakeholder participation contribute positively to implementation outcomes.

Third, this study proposes the Adaptive Building Approval Policy Implementation Model as an empirically grounded implementation framework that refines the practical application of Grindle's Policy Implementation Theory. Rather than replacing the theory, the proposed model demonstrates how policy content and implementation context can be strengthened through institutional capacity development, collaborative governance, digital transformation, public participation, and continuous feedback mechanisms. Accordingly, the model represents an adaptive governance framework derived from empirical findings that may assist local governments in improving Building Approval implementation under increasingly dynamic institutional conditions. The proposed model constitutes a conceptual contribution of this study and should be validated through future empirical research before broader generalization.

Author Contributions

Acknowledgements

Abdurrahman, A., Gustomo, A., & Prasetio, E. (2024). Impact of Dynamic Capabilities on Digital Transformation and Innovation to Improve Banking Performance: A TOE Framework Study. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(1), 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100215 Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543– 571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Bank, W. (2023). Improving public sector performance through digital governance. Caesar, R., Priyanti, E., & Ramdani, R. (2023). Implementasi Kebijakan Izin Mendirikan Bangunan Dinas Penanaman Modal Dan Pelayanan Terpadu Satu Pintu Kota Bekasi. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan), 7, 2167. https://doi.org/10.58258/jisip.v7i3.5248 Capano, G., & Lepori, B. (2024). Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector. Policy Sciences, 57(1), 53– 82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09521-0 Capano, G., Pritoni, A., & Profeti, S. (2025). Does Policy Capacity Truly Matter for Governmental Effectiveness? A Conjunctural Analysis of the Quality of Governance in Italian Regions. Governance, 38(3), e70027. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70027 Citaristi, I. (2022). United nations human settlements programme—UN-habitat. In The Europa directory of international organizations 2022 (24th ed., pp. 240–243). Routledge. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4, Ed.). Sage publications. Dicksan, I. (2026). Implementation of Good Governance in Digital-Based Public Services in Local Government. Riwayat: Educational Journal of History and Humanities, 3(1), 4701–4714. https://doi.org/10.24815/riwayat.v9i1.576 Domorenok, E., Graziano, P., & Polverari, L. (2021). Policy integration, policy design and administrative capacities. Evidence from EU cohesion policy. Policy and Society, 40(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1930697 Edwards, G. C. (1980). Implementing public policy. In Congressional Quarterly Press. Congressional Quarterly Press. Fernández‐i‐Marín, X., Hinterleitner, M., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2024). Policy growth, implementation capacities, and the effect on policy performance. Governance, 73(3), 927–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12816 Grindle, M. S. (2017). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Theoretically, this study enriches policy implementation literature by illustrating that Grindle’s implementation framework remains highly relevant for explaining Building Approval policy implementation while also demonstrating the importance of incorporating adaptive governance dimensions into contemporary public administration. Practically, the findings provide policy recommendations for strengthening institutional capacity, improving cross-sector collaboration, optimizing digital governance, expanding technical assistance, and enhancing citizen participation to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and sustainability of Building Approval services in Indonesian local governments. Astuti was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, and preparation of the original draft. The methodology was also developed with contributions from Prof. Fernandes Simangunsong and Dr. Megandaru. Writing–review and editing was carried out by Astuti, Prof. Fernandes Simangunsong, Dr. Megandaru, and Dr. Ika Sartika, while supervision was provided by Prof. Fernandes Simangunsong, Dr. Megandaru, and Dr. Ika Sartika. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. This article was developed from the author's doctoral dissertation in the Doctoral Program in Faculty of Government Science, Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri. Princeton University Press. Khan, R., & Hussain, F. (2024). Assessing policy capacity and policy effectiveness: A comparative study using sustainable governance indicators. European Policy Analysis, 10(4), 575–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1217 Khuroshvili, B. (2025). The policy planning system in Georgia: design and implementation challenges. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 16(1), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2025-0108 Lincoln & Guba, E. (1985). Lincoln, & Guba, EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills. CA: Sage. Maarschalk, HJ. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity- conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis (4th ed.). sage. Mutadi, R., Kusuma, A., & Daryono, D. (2025). Implementation of the Building Permit Issuance Policy in Bontang City. Journal of Government and Politics (JGOP), 7(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.31764/jgop.v7i2.36320 Noviany, H. (2024). Beyond Technology: A Narrative Review of Organizational Dynamics in IT Change Management. Data : Journal of Information Systems and Management, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.61978/data.v2i2.718 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. In (No Title) (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Reynilda, Nugraha, A. R., Sako, U., & Wibasuri, A. (2025). Governance Innovation Through E-Government Platforms: A Study On Service Efficiency And Citizen Satisfaction. JHSS (JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL STUDIES), 9(3), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v9i3.120 Sager, F., & Gofen, A. (2022). The polity of implementation: Organizational and institutional arrangements in policy implementation. Governance, 35(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12677 Simamora, P., Priyanto, A., & Sugilar, S. (2024). Implementasi Kebijakan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 16 Tahun 2021 di Kabupaten Natuna. Syntax Literate ; Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia, 9, 6346–6357. https://doi.org/10.36418/syntax-literate.v9i11.52277 Sullivan, E., Fraussen, B., & Braun, C. (2025). Lead, link, or leverage? An integrative framework to assess different government roles in collaborative governance processes across political systems. Policy Studies Journal, 53(4), 971–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70030 Torres-Sandoval, A. J., Tavera-Cortés, M., Acevedo-Ortiz, M. A., & Ortiz-

Hernández, Y. (2025). Transparency, Governance, and Public Service Management: Challenges of Citizen Participation in Ecatepec de Morelos. Administrative Sciences, 15(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040144 Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404

Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative Governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419 Whitsel, L., Honeycutt, S., Radcliffe, R., Johnson, J., Chase, P., & Noyes, P. (2024). Policy implementation and outcome evaluation: establishing a framework and expanding capacity for advocacy organizations to assess the impact of their work in public policy. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024- 01110-0

References

Abdurrahman, A., Gustomo, A., & Prasetio, E. (2024). Impact of Dynamic Capabilities on Digital Transformation and Innovation to Improve Banking Performance: A TOE Framework Study. Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(1), 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100215 Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 18(4), 543– 571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Bank, W. (2023). Improving public sector performance through digital governance.

Caesar, R., Priyanti, E., & Ramdani, R. (2023). Implementasi Kebijakan Izin Mendirikan Bangunan Dinas Penanaman Modal Dan Pelayanan Terpadu Satu Pintu Kota Bekasi. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan), 7, 2167. https://doi.org/10.58258/jisip.v7i3.5248

Capano, G., & Lepori, B. (2024). Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector.

Policy Sciences, 57(1), 53– 82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09521-0 Capano, G., Pritoni, A., & Profeti, S. (2025). Does Policy Capacity Truly Matter for Governmental Effectiveness? A Conjunctural Analysis of the Quality of Governance in Italian Regions.

Governance, 38(3), e70027. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70027 Citaristi, I. (2022). United nations human settlements programme—UN-habitat. In The Europa directory of international organizations 2022 (24th ed., pp. 240–243). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4, Ed.). Sage publications.

Dicksan, I. (2026). Implementation of Good Governance in Digital-Based Public Services in Local Government. Riwayat: Educational Journal of History and

Humanities, 3(1), 4701–4714. https://doi.org/10.24815/riwayat.v9i1.576 Domorenok, E., Graziano, P., & Polverari, L. (2021). Policy integration, policy design and administrative capacities. Evidence from EU cohesion policy. Policy and

Society, 40(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1930697 Edwards, G. C. (1980). Implementing public policy. In Congressional Quarterly Press. Congressional Quarterly Press. Fernández‐i‐Marín, X., Hinterleitner, M., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2024). Policy growth, implementation capacities, and the effect on policy performance.

Governance, 73(3), 927–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12816 Grindle, M. S. (2017). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Princeton University Press.

Khan, R., & Hussain, F. (2024). Assessing policy capacity and policy effectiveness: A comparative study using sustainable governance indicators. European

Policy Analysis, 10(4), 575–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1217 Khuroshvili, B. (2025). The policy planning system in Georgia: design and implementation challenges. Eastern Journal of

European Studies, 16(1), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2025-0108 Lincoln & Guba, E. (1985).

Lincoln, & Guba, EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills. CA: Sage.

Maarschalk, HJ. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity- conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 5(2), 145–174. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government

Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis (4th ed.). sage.

Mutadi, R., Kusuma, A., & Daryono, D. (2025). Implementation of the Building Permit Issuance Policy in Bontang City. Journal of Government and Politics (JGOP), 7(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.31764/jgop.v7i2.36320

Noviany, H. (2024). Beyond Technology: A Narrative Review of Organizational Dynamics in IT Change Management. Data : Journal of Information Systems and

Management, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.61978/data.v2i2.718 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. In (No Title) (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Reynilda, Nugraha, A. R., Sako, U., & Wibasuri, A. (2025). Governance Innovation Through E-Government Platforms: A Study On Service Efficiency And Citizen Satisfaction. JHSS (JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL STUDIES), 9(3), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v9i3.120

Sager, F., & Gofen, A. (2022). The polity of implementation: Organizational and institutional arrangements in policy implementation.

Governance, 35(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12677 Simamora, P., Priyanto, A., & Sugilar, S. (2024). Implementasi Kebijakan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 16 Tahun 2021 di Kabupaten Natuna. Syntax Literate ; Jurnal

Ilmiah Indonesia, 9, 6346–6357. https://doi.org/10.36418/syntax-literate.v9i11.52277 Sullivan, E., Fraussen, B., & Braun, C. (2025).

Lead, link, or leverage? An integrative framework to assess different government roles in collaborative governance processes across political systems. Policy Studies Journal, 53(4), 971–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70030 Torres-Sandoval, A. J., Tavera-Cortés, M., Acevedo-Ortiz, M. A., & Ortiz- Hernández, Y. (2025).

Transparency, Governance, and Public Service Management: Challenges of Citizen Participation in Ecatepec de Morelos. Administrative Sciences, 15(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040144 Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework.

Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404 Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative Governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419

Whitsel, L., Honeycutt, S., Radcliffe, R., Johnson, J., Chase, P., & Noyes, P. (2024). Policy implementation and outcome evaluation: establishing a framework and expanding capacity for advocacy organizations to assess the impact of their work in public policy. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024- 01110-0