Village government's financial system: Investigating the impact of the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework on performance,accountability,and transparency
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Village government's financial system: Investigating the impact of the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework on performance,accountability,and transparency
Given Indonesia's geographical configuration as an archipelago comprising 81,616 villages, effective monitoring of village government financial management poses significant challenges. Despite the mandatory implementation of the Village Financial System (VFS) to facilitate this monitoring, a decade into its rollout, not all village governments have adopted the system effectively. This research aims to investigate the antecedents of VFS adoption by developing a comprehensive model grounded in the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework. The framework encompasses technological factors (relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity), organizational factors (top management support and organizational readiness), and environmental factors (government regulation and citizen demand). Furthermore, the study examines the impact of VFS adoption on governance outcomes, specifically performance, accountability, and transparency. Using village governments as the unit of analysis, the research involved 215 respondents, with data collected via a questionnaire survey. Hypotheses were tested using the partial least squares method. The findings indicate that relative advantage, compatibility, top management support, organizational readiness, government regulation, and citizen demand positively influence VFS adoption, while complexity does not. Additionally, VFS adoption is found to significantly enhance performance, accountability, and transparency in village government operations. This study contributes to a better understanding of VFS adoption by the central government, underscoring its role in improving public governance. It also offers insights into the broader challenges of e-government implementation, highlighting the importance of aligning technological, organizational, and environmental factors for successful information system adoption.
AlajmiMMohammadianMTalukderM (2023) The determinants of smart government systems adoption by public sector organizations in Saudi Arabia. Heliyon9(10): e20394.
2.
AlexopoulosCSaxenaSJanssenM, et al. (2024) Why do open government data initiatives fail in developing countries? A root cause analysis of the most prevalent barriers and problems. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries90(2): e12297. Wiley Online Library.
3.
AliHTitahR (2021) Is big data used by cities? Understanding the nature and antecedents of big data use by municipalities. Government Information Quarterly38(4): 101600.
4.
AliOShresthaAOsmanajV (2021) Cloud computing technology adoption: an evaluation of key factors in local governments. Information Technology and People34(2): 666–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2019-0119
5.
AligarhFFalikhatunFNugrohoA (2023a) Zakat, infaq and shadaqah (zis) digitalization: A case study using technology organization environment framework. EL DINAR: Jurnal Keuangan Dan Perbankan Syariah11(1): 78–95.
6.
AligarhFSutopoBWidarjoW (2023b) The antecedents of cloud computing adoption and its consequences for MSMEs’ performance: A model based on the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework. Cogent Business & Management10(2): 2220190. Taylor & Francis.
7.
AlsharariNMAl-ShboulMAlteneijiS (2020) Implementation of cloud ERP in the SME: Evidence from UAE. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development27(2): 299–327. Emerald Publishing Limited.
8.
ArifinBWicaksonoETenriniRH, et al. (2020) Village fund, village-owned-enterprises, and employment: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Rural Studies79: 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.05.
9.
AriyantoDDewiAAHasibuanHT, et al. (2022) The Success of Information Systems and Sustainable Information Society: Measuring the Implementation of a Village Financial System. Sustainability (Switzerland)14(7). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073851
10.
AwaHOOjiaboOU (2016) A model of adoption determinants of ERP within T-O-E framework. Information Technology and People29(4): 901–930. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
BalasubramanianSAl-AhbabiSSreejithS (2020) Knowledge management processes and performance: The impact of ownership of public sector organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management33(1): 1–21. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd.
13.
BarneyJ (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.
14.
BasloomRSSani MohamadMHAuzairSM (2022) Applicability of public sector reform initiatives of the Yemeni government from the integrated TOE-DOI framework. International Journal of Innovation Studies6(4): 286–302. KeAi Publishing Communications Ltd.
15.
BasyalDKPoudyalNSeoJ-W (2018) Does E-government reduce corruption? Evidence from a heterogeneous panel data model. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy12(2): 134–154. Emerald Publishing Limited.
16.
BhattacharyaMWambaSF (2018) A conceptual framework of RFID adoption in retail using TOE framework. In: Khosrow-Pour M (ed) Technology Adoption and Social Issues: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, pp.69–102. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5201-7.ch005
17.
Bin-NashwanSAShahMHAbdul-JabbarH, et al. (2023) Social-related factors in integrated UTAUT model for ZakaTech acceptance during the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research14(8): 1383–1403. Emerald Publishing.
18.
BougieRSekaranU (2019) Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. John Wiley & Sons.
BrownSAMasseyAPMontoya-WeissMM, et al. (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems11(4): 283–295. Taylor & Francis.
21.
ChenXHuM (2025) Identifying factors and configurations influencing the effectiveness of government data openness in China based on fsQCA. Data and Information Management9(1): 100071.
22.
ChipevaPCruz-JesusFOliveiraT, et al. (2018) Digital divide at individual level: Evidence for Eastern and Western European countries. Government Information Quarterly35(3): 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.003
23.
ChoiHParkMJRhoJJ, et al. (2016) Rethinking the assessment of e-government implementation in developing countries from the perspective of the design–reality gap: Applications in the Indonesian e-procurement system. Telecommunications Policy40(7): 644–660. Elsevier Ltd.
24.
DadhichMHiranKK (2022) Empirical investigation of extended TOE model on Corporate Environment Sustainability and dimensions of operating performance of SMEs: A high order PLS-ANN approach. Journal of Cleaner Production363. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132309
25.
DefitriSYBahariAHandraH, et al. (2020) Determinant factors of e-government implementation and public accountability: Toe framework approach. Public Policy and Administration19(4): 37–51. Mykolo Romerio Universitetas.
26.
ErnawatiETajuddinTNurS (2021) Does government expenditure affect regional inclusive growth? An experience of implementing village fund policy in Indonesia. Economies9(4). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9040164
27.
FuadKWinarsihWIfadaLM, et al. (2021) An analysis in the application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model on village fund system (SISKEUDES) with islamic work ethics as a moderating effect. In: BarolliLYimKEnokidoT (eds) Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.347–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79725-6_34
28.
GangwarHDateHRamaswamyR (2015) Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management28(1): 107–130. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
29.
García-JuanBEscrig-TenaABRoca-PuigV (2019) The empowerment–organizational performance link in local governments. Personnel Review48(1): 118–140. Emerald Publishing.
30.
Garcia-RioEPalos-SanchezPRBaena-LunaP, et al. (2023) Different approaches to analyzing e-government adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Information Quarterly40(4). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2017-0273
31.
GuoY (2024) Investigating the impact of culture dimensions on Chinese citizens’ continuous use of e-government websites: A cultural model-based study. Acta Psychologica244: 104196.
32.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24. Emerald Publishing Limited.
33.
HamidahNNAligarhFSetiawanA, et al. (2024) Why do Indonesian Muslims Donate through Crowdfunding Platforms? An Integration of UTAUT, Transparency, and Trust. International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance (IJIEF)7(2). https://doi.org/10.18196/ijief.v7i2.22556.
34.
HaneemFKamaNTaskinN, et al. (2019) Determinants of master data management adoption by local government organizations: An empirical study. International Journal of Information Management45: 25–43. Elsevier.
35.
HannaHHarounMHGoharN (2020) Developing a framework for block chain adoption using TOE model. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research15(1). Centre for Business & Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V15IS01/ART-02
36.
HassanHTretiakovAWhiddettD (2017) Factors affecting the breadth and depth of e-procurement use in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce27(4): 304–324. Taylor & Francis.
37.
HidajatT (2025) Village fund corruption mode: An anti-corruption perspective in Indonesia. Journal of Financial Crime32(2): 444–455. Emerald Publishing Limited.
38.
HilmawanRApriantiYVoDTH, et al. (2023) Rural development from village funds, village-owned enterprises, and village original income. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity9(4). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100159
39.
HujranOAl-DebeiMMAl-AdwanAS, et al. (2023) Examining the antecedents and outcomes of smart government usage: An integrated model. Government Information Quarterly40(1): 101783. Elsevier.
40.
IndrianiMNadirsyahNFuadiR, et al. (2020) Can siskeudes support village governance in aceh province of Indonesia?Cogent Business & Management7(1): 1743617. Taylor & Francis.
41.
JunaidiAMohd Shahizan BinOSiti ZaitonMH, et al. (2025) Smart villages: A systematic review of trends, models, and metrics. Cogent Social Sciences11(1): 2492833. Cogent OA.
42.
KhayerATalukderMSBaoY, et al. (2020) Cloud computing adoption and its impact on SMEs’ performance for cloud supported operations: A dual-stage analytical approach. Technology in Society60. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101225
43.
LaninDHermantoN (2019) The effect of service quality toward public satisfaction and public trust on local government in Indonesia. International Journal of Social Economics46(3): 377–392. Emerald Publishing Limited.
44.
LewisBD (2015) Decentralising to villages in Indonesia: Money (and other) mistakes. Public Administration and Development35(5): 347–359. Wiley Online Library.
45.
LiY-ZHeT-LSongY-R, et al. (2018) Factors impacting donors’ intention to donate to charitable crowd-funding projects in China: A UTAUT-based model. Information, Communication & Society21(3): 404–415. Taylor & Francis.
46.
LiangYQiGWeiK, et al. (2017) Exploring the determinant and influence mechanism of e-government cloud adoption in government agencies in China. Government Information Quarterly34(3): 481–495. Elsevier.
47.
LinFFofanahSSLiangD (2011) Assessing citizen adoption of e-government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 271–279. Elsevier.
48.
LiuYLiHKostakosV, et al. (2014) An empirical investigation of mobile government adoption in rural China: A case study in zhejiang province. Government Information Quarterly31(3): 432–442. Elsevier Ltd.
49.
LoshinD (2009) Chapter 5 - Data Quality and MDM. In: Loshin D (ed) Master Data Management. Morgan Kaufmann, 87–103. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123742254000059.
50.
MahakittikunTSuntrayuthSBhatiaseviV (2021) The impact of technological-organizational-environmental (TOE) factors on firm performance: Merchant’s perspective of mobile payment from Thailand’s retail and service firms. Journal of Asia Business Studies15(2): 359–383. Emerald Publishing Limited.
51.
MahmudASusilowatiNHandayaniBD, et al. (2024) Smart village: Evaluating the role of siskeudes management in enhancing village fund accountability. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology8(6): 7712–7725. Learning Gate.
52.
MalikSChadharMVatanasakdakulS, et al. (2021) Factors affecting the organizational adoption of blockchain technology: Extending the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework in the Australian context. Sustainability13(16): 9404. MDPI.
53.
MaroufkhaniPIranmaneshMGhobakhlooM (2022) Determinants of big data analytics adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Industrial Management and Data Systems. Holdings123(1): 278–301. Emerald Group.
54.
MolinilloSJaputraA (2017) Organizational adoption of digital information and technology: A theoretical review. The Bottom Line30(01): 33–46. Emerald Publishing Limited.
55.
MooreGCBenbasatI (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research2(3): 192–222. INFORMS.
56.
NorWHudayaMNovriyandanaR (2019) Financial statements disclosure on Indonesian local government websites: A quest of its determinant (s). Asian Journal of Accounting Research4(1): 112–128. Emerald Publishing Limited.
57.
NurrizkianaBHandayaniLWidiastutyE (2017) Determinants of transparency and accountability of regional financial management and its implications to trust of public-stakeholders. Journal of Accounting and Investment18(1): 28–47.
58.
PermatasariPBudiarsoADartantoT, et al. (2024) Village fund management and reporting systems: are they accountable?Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. Emerald Publishing. Epub ahead of print 2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2023-0098
59.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879. American Psychological Association.
60.
PremkumarGRobertsM (1999) Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega27(4): 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00071-1
61.
PurwantiLIwanTMuhammadI, et al. (2024) Formal-cultural accountability: A [new] paradigm of public accountability. Cogent Social Sciences10(1): 2297756. Cogent OA.
62.
PutriCMArgilés-BoschJMRavendaD (2024) Creating good village governance: An effort to prevent village corruption in Indonesia. Journal of Financial Crime31(2): 455–468. Emerald Publishing.
63.
QalatiSAYuanLWKhanMAS, et al. (2021) A mediated model on the adoption of social media and SMEs’ performance in developing countries. Technology in Society64. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101513
64.
RogersEM (1995) Diffusion of innovations: Modifications of a model for telecommunications. In: Stoetzer MW and Mahler A (eds) Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.25–38.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-79868-9_2
65.
RuivoPOliveiraTNetoM (2014) Examine ERP post-implementation stages of use and value: Empirical evidence from Portuguese SMEs. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems15(2): 166–184. Elsevier nc.
66.
SharmaSKarAKGuptaMP (2024) Untangling the web between digital citizen empowerment, accountability and quality of participation experience for e-government: Lessons from India. Government Information Quarterly41(3): 101964.
67.
SharmaSKMetriBDwivediYK, et al. (2021) Challenges common service centers (CSCs) face in delivering e-government services in rural India. Government Information Quarterly38(2). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101964
68.
ShenkoyaT (2023) Can digital transformation improve transparency and accountability of public governance in Nigeria?Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy17(1): 54–71. Emerald Publishing Limited.
69.
SofyaniHPratoloSSalehZ (2022) Do accountability and transparency promote community trust? Evidence from village government in Indonesia. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change18(3): 397–418. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd.
70.
SofyaniHRiyadhHAFahleviH (2020) Improving service quality, accountability and transparency of local government: The intervening role of information technology governance. Cogent Business & Management7(1): 1735690. Taylor & Francis.
71.
SofyaniHYayaRSalehZ (2023) Transparency and community trust in village government: Does corruption perception matter?Financial Accountability & Management39(2): 355–374. Wiley Online Library.
72.
SterrenbergGDecostaPL (2023) Identifying the crucial factors of e-government success from the perspective of Australian citizens living with disability using a public value approach. Government Information Quarterly40(3): 101813. Elsevier.
TajudeenFPJaafarNIAininS (2018) Understanding the impact of social media usage among organizations. Information and Management55(3): 308–321. Elsevier .V.
75.
van de WeerdIMangulaISBrinkkemperS (2016) Adoption of software as a service in Indonesia: Examining the influence of organizational factors. Information and Management53(7): 915–928. Elsevier .V.
76.
VenkateshVThongJylChanFky, et al. (2016) Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: The mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Information Systems Research27(1): 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0612
77.
WangH-JLoJ (2016) Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly33(1): 80–88. Elsevier.
78.
WangSXiaoYLiangZ (2024) Exploring cross-national divide in government adoption of artificial intelligence: Insights from explainable artificial intelligence techniques. Telematics and Informatics90: 102134.
79.
WattsJDTacconiLIrawanS, et al. (2019) Village transfers for the environment: Lessons from community-based development programs and the village fund. Forest Policy and Economics108. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.008
80.
YanYCLyuSJ (2023) Can e-government reduce local governments’ financial deficits?——Analysis based on county-level data from China. Government Information Quarterly40(3). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101812
81.
ZhangBZhuY (2021) Comparing attitudes towards adoption of e-government between urban users and rural users: An empirical study in Chongqing municipality, China. Behaviour and Information Technology40(11): 1154–1168. Taylor and Francis Ltd.
