Deregulating and De-bureaucratizing Higher Education
The presence of the Internet of Things (IoT) has brought disruption to all fields, including higher education, along with the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry and universities as the main actors.
.
The presence of the Internet of Things (IoT) has brought disruption to all fields, including higher education, along with the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry and universities as the main actors.
At the opening of the XIV Campus Convention and the 20th Annual Meeting of the Indonesian Rectors Forum on Feb. 15, 2018 in Makassar, South Sulawesi, President Joko Widodo disclosed two strategic issues in the efforts to respond to the era of digital disruption.
Two strategic issues
The first issue concerns the obligatory contribution for each category of higher education institutions: local, national and international. A university can be given the mandate to contribute to develop local potentials and advancement. There are universities that are mandated to contribute nationally, such as expanding access to affordable higher education and preparing manpower for industries. Finally, universities can be mandated to contribute internationally. This third type of university is given world ranking.
A clear mandate for every university is necessary. Such clarity will be useful for the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry, for example, in its funding policies and arranging more appropriate performance targets for each university. For example, universities that are mandated to provide equal access to higher education, can be given a higher proportion of the Bidik Misi scholarship budget. Its performance is measured by the proportion of the student body that comes from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, clarity will also be beneficial for the universities to focus on allocating resources in accordance with their given mandates.
Viewing a university based on its obligatory contribution will possibly require adjustments to institutional structures within the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry. The same holds true for state universities (PTN) based on their financial management system, namely the working units (satker), public service agencies (BLU) and state universities with legal entity status (PTN-BH). The organizational matrix is one option.
As for the second issue, the President has asked the Research, Technology and Higher Education Minister to coordinate with other ministries in deregulation and de-bureaucratization measures. Presently, many of the higher education ministry’s administrative procedures, policies and regulations belongs to other ministries/agencies.
For example, a recent uproar occurred in response to the issuance of Home Minister’s Regulation No. 3/2018 on Research Certificate Issuance, which had the potential to prolong the administrative procedures for approving academic and student research. Even though the regulation was revoked in the end, it indicates the need for better inter-ministerial coordination.
Importance of coordination
Better coordination between the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry and the Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry is also expected to shorten the process for lecturer\'s performance report. Currently, civil servant lecturers must produce several performance reports that are relatively the same, such as Reports/Lecturers\' Work Load for the higher education ministry and the Employee Performance Goals for the reform ministry. By utilizing an integrated information system, it is expected that lecturers will only be required to produce one performance report that can be accessed by the two ministries.
The following two steps can be followed for deregulation and de-bureaucratization. The first step is to question the relevance of each procedure/regulation, both for the ministries and the universities. If the procedure/regulation is irrelevant and even impedes the institutions/universities in achieving their objectives, it must be boldly revised or removed.
A procedure/regulation can become irrelevant as a result of information technology development or because the basic assumption of the procedure/regulation is unmet. For example, online lectures can and have been widely used today. Implementing online lectures requires adjusting the regulation, for example, on the physical presence of lecturers.
The operational procedure for lecturers as workers in the knowledge industry is different from other types of civil servants, who generally come early in the morning and go home in the evening. As knowledge workers, lecturers can teach in class or online, read and write anywhere, hold discussions with students and partners virtually, provide educational services to people in remote areas, and conduct research in laboratories or in the field. Therefore, a civil servant regulation that is general in nature and based on physical presence at work is not necessarily relevant to the kind of work lecturers do.
To identify the relevance of a procedure/activity, the following questions that have modified from Keen (1997) can be used. Is the procedure/activity a characteristic or the identity of the ministry or institution/university? If not, proceed to the following question: Is the procedure/activity critical to achieving the performance target of the ministry or institution/university? If not, then: Does the procedure/activity support other business?
If not, is the procedure/activity done simply to comply with an existing regulation/law? If the answer to this final question is no, the procedure/activity is not relevant and can be abandoned. If the answer is yes, then the procedure/activity is still relevant. It is important to evaluate the relevance of each procedure/activity through these four questions prior to deregulation and de-bureaucratization.
Second, communicate the need for deregulation and de-bureaucratization to related parties. In the context of universities, the university management needs to present its reasons for changing the procedure/activities to all stakeholders, both internal (students, lecturers, staff, deans, etc.) and external (ministries and other government institutions). Of course, the reaction to the change may not always be positive.
Regulatory constraints
Resistance to a shorter bureaucratic chain can arise at the ministries or within the universities themselves. The efforts to persuade those in authority at t the ministerial/institutional level to deregulate and de-bureaucratize have not always succeeded. The "classic" reasons are that it would conflict with other rules, or fears exist that the decision would be criminalized. Learning from the rampant "criminalization of bureaucracy", it is said that there have been those who argued that it was better to do nothing than to laboriously make new breakthroughs, but have ended up bearing the risks personally.
A positive response was seen when the Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry deregulated the educational system through Ministerial Regulation No. 257/2017, which states that proposed programs of study should not be restricted by the existing nomenclature. The regulation gave universities the opportunity to open programs that were relevant to the future needs of the state and industry. This must be followed by employers\' institutions, including at ministries or institutions, to accept graduates from the new "contemporary" programs.
In closing, this wave of disruption must be used as an opportunity to examine the many regulations that complicate higher education. The Research, Technology and Higher Education Ministry, which has started to deregulate and de-bureaucratize related procedures and terms, is expected to expand the process and encourage the universities to follow suit. Ministries and other institutions are also expected to support the deregulation and de-bureaucratization of higher education. The key word is coordination, and willingness to let go of sectorial egos.
Didi Achjari, Lecturer, School of Economics and Business, University of Gadjah Mada
