Toward Multi-Stakeholder Requirements for Digital Readiness Assessment Systems (DRAS): A Participatory Approach in Higher Education

Agus Pamuji; Amat  Damuri; Reza  Hardian

doi:10.59395/ijadis.v7i2.1581

Authors

Agus Pamuji Doctoral Program of Information System, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia
Amat Damuri Informatic Management, STMIK Al Muslim, Bekasi, Indonesia
Reza Hardian Statistics, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59395/ijadis.v7i2.1581

Keywords:

Participatory Action Research, Digital Readiness Assessment, Multi-Stakeholder requirement, Thematic analysis , Digital Transformation

Abstract

A digital readiness assessment is essential for governing digital transformation in higher education; however, existing models are largely technology-centric, neglecting stakeholder needs in early system development, and provide limited guidance for system design. Consequently, current tools are fragmented, weakly aligned with institutional realities, and insufficient for strategic decision-making. This study develops stakeholder-driven requirements and an integrated assessment scenario using a participatory approach. A qualitative design combining Participatory Action Research with two sequential Focus Group Discussions involving diverse stakeholder groups across Indonesian higher education institutions was employed. Data were analysed through thematic analysis supported by a structured involvement matrix to ensure balanced and iterative participation. The findings identify six interrelated domains of digital readiness assessment systems: Data Management, Assessment Processes, Analytics and Reporting, Governance Support, User Interaction, and Technical Infrastructure. Collectively, these domains provide a socio-technical foundation that supports continuous monitoring, evidence-based planning, and institutional learning rather than one-time evaluation, highlighting the importance of inclusive co-design. The study provides a structured set of stakeholder-informed requirement domains to support future DRAS development.

529 172

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] G. Li, X. Sun, M. Ye, and A. Mardani, Assessment of digital transformation challenges for business model innovation in the context of higher education institutions using a decision support approach, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 100527, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100527

[2] Y. Ali, H. U. Khan, F. Khan, and Y. Moon, Building integrated assessment model for IoT technology deployment in the Industry 4.0, Journal of Cloud Computing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 155, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-024-00718-5

[3] I. Ansari, M. Barati, M. R. Sadeghi Moghadam, and M. Ghobakhloo, An Industry 4.0 readiness model for new technology exploitation, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 25192538, Mar. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2022-0331

[4] S. Heaton, D. Teece, and E. Agronin, Dynamic capabilities and governance: An empirical investigation of financial performance of the higher education sector, Strategic Management Journal , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 520548, Feb. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3444

[5] S. H. Zolfani, R. Bazrafshan, F. Ecer, and . Karamaa, The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America, Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 14, p. 2401, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math10142401

[6] Y. Zhao, Y. Li, Y. Xiao, H. Chang, and B. Liu, Factors Influencing the Acceptance of ChatGPT in High Education: An Integrated Model With PLS-SEM and fsQCA Approach, SAGE Open, vol. 14, no. 4, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241289835

[7] O. Laraichi, T. Daim, S. Alzahrani, L. Hogaboam, G. I. Bolatan, and M. M. Moughari, Technology readiness assessment: Case of clinical decision support systems in healthcare, Technology in Society, vol. 79, p. 102736, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102736

[8] D. M. Azilagbetor, G. Davies, L. D. Genevive, D. M. Shaw, and B. S. Elger, Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 735750, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10288-1

[9] Z. Blakong, C. Savithi, and S. Khantong, Modeling the Determinants of Smart Campus Success: An Empirical Study in Thailand, Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 24. p. 11048, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411048

[10] M. Romero Jeldres, E. Daz Costa, and T. Faouzi Nadim, A review of Lawshes method for calculating content validity in the social sciences, Frontiers in Education, vol. Volume 8-, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1271335

[11] D. Agostino and C. Costantini, A measurement framework for assessing the digital transformation of cultural institutions: the Italian case, Meditari Account. Res., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 11411168, Nov. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2021-1207

[12] K. McEwan et al., Co-Producing Personalised Discharge Planning: Developing a Toolkit to Improve Caregiver Involvement in Hospital Transitions, Heal. Expect., vol. 28, no. 6, p. e70483, Dec. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70483

[13] Y. Li, A. N. Khan, Y. Zhang, and N. A. Khan, From leadership to digital maturity in public healthcare: evidence from Pakistans digital transformation journey, Journal Health Organization Management, pp. 113, Nov. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-08-2024-0338

[14] J. Nandhakumar, Design for success?: critical success factors in executive information systems development: [1], Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1996.12

[15] W. Sakitri, K. Kardoyo, T. Tusyanah, and K. Setiaji, Determinants of work readiness as a teacher for higher education students in industry revolution of 4.0, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 10991108, Jun. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2023-0592

[16] S. Santika and T. Mauritsius, Determinant Factors of Success for the Village Information System in Providing Sustainable Services and Governance, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 16, no. 7, p. 14, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2025.0160746

[17] M.-C. Balaam and G. Thomson, Evaluation of a participatory action project to improve safety and outcomes in maternity care, Health Research Policy and Systems, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 50, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01319-7

[18] D. Cockerham, Participatory action research: building understanding, dialogue, and positive actions in a changing digital environment, Educational technology research and development, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 27632791, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10294-1

[19] I. T. Awidi and M. Paynter, An Evaluation of the Impact of Digital Technology Innovations on Students Learning: Participatory Research Using a Student-Centred Approach, Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 6589, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09619-5

[20] C. Jesus et al., Better together: participatory action research for co-constructing an intervention to enhance leisure activities in non-ambulatory adolescents with cerebral palsy, Research Involvement and Engagement, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 69, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-025-00684-5

[21] A. Jarkiewicz, A. Krawczyk, and E. Szulewicz, The Development of the Participatory Approach to Digital Learning: Research Findings from Poland, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09848-4

[22] M. Signorini and A. P. Pom, Shaping the future of facility management. Market and literature insights on digital twin adoption, Facilities, vol. 43, no. 1112, pp. 818834, Apr. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2025-0029

[23] D.-W. Smits, K. van Meeteren, M. Klem, M. Alsem, and M. Ketelaar, Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the Involvement Matrix, Research Involvement and Engagement, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 30, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4

[24] N. Samaisong, C. Somprasert, and L. Pawloski, The Development of a Care Model for Sarcopenic Obesity in Older Adults: Participatory Action Research, Nursing Reports, vol. 15, no. 10. p. 357, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15100357

[25] T. N. S. Sachit, G. Mahboobeh, S. Hadi, and D. J. Edwards, The Impact of Using Information Systems on Project Management Success Through the Mediator Variable of Project Risk Management: Results from Construction Companies, Buildings, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 1260, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081260

[26] N. Baigabylov, K. Mukhambetova, K. Baigusheva, O. Shebalina, M. Kudabekov, and A. Akpanov, Identifying risks in the digital transformation of higher education, Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 22, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 147172, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2025.009

[27] S. K. Ahmed et al., Using thematic analysis in qualitative research, Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health., vol. 6, p. 100198, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198

[28] Muhammad Naeem, Wilson Ozuem, Kerry Howell, and Silvia Ranfagni, Demystification and Actualisation of Data Saturation in Qualitative Research Through Thematic Analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 23, p. 16094069241229776, May 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241229777

[29] M. Goyanes, C. Lopezosa, and B. Jord, Thematic analysis of interview data with ChatGPT: designing and testing a reliable research protocol for qualitative research, Quality & Quantity, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 54915510, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02199-3

[30] A. Cernasev and D. R. Axon, Research and scholarly methods: Thematic analysis, JACCP: Journal of The American College of Clinical Pharmacy., vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 751755, Jul. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1817

[31] V. Braun and V. Clarke, Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher, International Journal of Transgender Health, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 16, Jan. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597

[32] I.-A. Chounta, A. Ortega-Arranz, S. Daskalaki, Y. Dimitriadis, and N. Avouris, Toward a data-informed framework for the assessment of digital readiness of higher education institutions, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 59, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00491-0

[33] M. Iskarim, Aenurofik, and Junaeti, Readiness of Islamic Higher Education Institutions in Indonesia for future quality assurance, Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 8092, Sep. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2024-0046

[34] P. Alcaide-Pulido, B. Gutirrez-Villar, E. Ordez-Olmedo, and M. Prez-Escolar, Analysis of faculty readiness for online teaching: assessing impact and adaptability in diverse educational contexts, Smart Learning Environments, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00353-2

[35] N. S. Ariyanti, M. A. Adha, R. B. Sumarsono, and Sultoni, Strategy to determine the priority of teachers quality problem using USG (Urgency, Seriousness, Growth) matrix, International Research-Based Education Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5462, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17977/um043v2i2p54-62