Not accompanied by detailed circumstantial knowledge and information system: glorification of success in Indonesian regencies’ and municipals’ smart city development Open Access

This study investigates the approach taken by the Indonesian Ministry of Information and Communication (IMIC) in developing smart cities, specifically whether the planning system is deterministic or nondeterministic. Deterministic planning involves employing definite knowledge and technologies (Angelidou, 2015; Cook and Valdez, 2023; Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012). In contrast, nondeterministic planning promises success without a clear foundation, relying instead on heuristic biases and indefinite knowledge (Cook and Valdez, 2023; Garcia-Aunon et al., 2019; Jameson et al., 2019). In 2017, the IMIC proclaimed the development of 100 smart city development (SCD) projects, with 50 regions selected to start. This study critically examines whether these projects are genuinely beneficial or merely a glorification of success. It highlights that many regions are required to build these SCD projects without sufficient fiscal capacity or information technology (IT) infrastructure, neglecting the need for essential knowledge as principled endowment capital (Ardito et al., 2019; Jameson et al., 2019; Panjaitan et al., 2023).

Similar SCD issues have been identified in other countries. For instance, India launched the Smart Cities Mission in 2015. Still, it faced significant challenges due to the lack of adequate infrastructure and financial resources, leading to many projects being only partially completed or remaining on paper (Kesar and Ache, 2024; Praharaj and Han, 2019; Vinod Kumar and Dahiya, 2017). In Brazil, bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lack of integrated planning hindered SCD’s progress, resulting in limited actual benefits to the citizens (De Carvalho et al., 2023; Gaffney and Robertson, 2018), and applying the same with other SCDs in other countries (Borruso and Balletto, 2022; Damian and Phan, 2022; Han and Kim, 2021; Reia and Cruz, 2021). In other words, these cases resonate with the SCD phenomena in Indonesia, where the deterministic approach of the IMIC does not adequately address the foundational requirements for successful SCD.

Focusing on the 100 SCD the IMIC proclaimed, this study raises novelties supported by the authors’ reasonings. First, we believe SCDs need structuralised knowledge (Garcia-Aunon et al., 2019; Hao et al., 2021) because SCDs are not only a physical investment in buildings, roads and bridges. Moreover, the authors explain that SCD was not categorised solely as an intangible investment, not a software app. Finally, we also argue that these SCDs are inclusively induced by the absolute need for knowledge in systems analysis, design and managerial control (Angelidou, 2015; Ardito et al., 2019; Pawar et al., 2021). Therefore, when SCD did not implicitly induct constructive knowledge, these SCD projects would be heuristic work (Hao et al., 2021; Michalec et al., 2019; Saha et al., 2021), succeeding investment without actual implementation. Hence, structuralised knowledge refers to combinations of various knowledge to guarantee success in developing SCD projects and simultaneously realising societies’ prosperity. In other words, constructive knowledge is not the varied knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICT) and developing dimensions such as transportation, medicine, hospitality, energy and services. Hence, constructive knowledge includes interconnected knowledge (Ardito et al., 2019; Bastian et al., 2022), in which smart city actors have competencies to control development projects and innovate the realisation of societies’ prosperity.

Second, this study argues that SCD will glorify success because it is not accompanied by adequately constructive knowledge internalised in actors’ cognition (Appio et al., 2019; Saha et al., 2021). On the other hand, glorifying success in SCD refers to the partiality of knowledge (Hens, 2020; Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012) for these finished projects, such as completing software apps. For example, the collective cognition of the IMIC’s agencies called SCD’s success with the finished e-government applications for small management entities, such as “Smart e-Gov” in Padang Pariaman Regency and “Go IT” in Riau Province. Thus, this study demonstrates that these products are virtual reality applications but cannot improve society’s welfare, reduce living costs, and increase access to leisure (Appio et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2021; Hao et al., 2021). Finally, it reveals that the IMIC’s SCD glorifies success because of fallacies in the inter-unconnectedness of the knowledge series (Armstrong and Manitsky, 2022; Bloomfield, 2020; Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021). Hence, the authors sharpened IMIC’s assertions of the glorification of success deployed by knowledge fallacies, placing collective cognition and retaining it to develop these SCD projects.

Third, this study proposes a third novelty, explaining that SCD success must be signified by systems that make people’s lives more productive. However, it proves that the things indicated do not exist in every region’s SCD. Furthermore, this study elaborates that the initial starting point of SCD in Indonesia did not take full advantage of what had been achieved. Therefore, SCD should be derived from the shadow of banking systems (Mohanty et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022) because of the established IST in several cities and regions in Indonesia. This study reveals that SCD becomes valid when its systems, regardless of their dimensions, relate to the banking system. Likewise, analysing and designing a smart city system should refer to the people’s behavioural patterns in financial economics practised by the local community (Fan et al., 2021; Osumanu et al., 2019). In other words, this research shows that SCD is valid to make the community more prosperous when dimensions developed are always associated with existing banking systems as a point of valuable angulation facilitating community life activities (Osumanu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). On the other hand, if it is not linked to the banking system, the benefits of a smart city will be relatively low because it is the same as starting from zero-of-nothing for society’s activity linkages.

This study intends to investigate the glorification of success in Indonesia SCD using the knowledge transformation methodology between the IMIC and the regions that develop these projects. In simple terms, SCD requires transforming three primary knowledge clusters. The first discipline is the knowledge cluster concentrating on IST (Gardner et al., 2021; Löfgren and Webster, 2020), including Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, extensive data analysis, machine learning, blockchains and deep learning. Second, the knowledge cluster of smart city dimensioning is developed systemically (Guma and Monstadt, 2021; Mohanta et al., 2020), such as transportation, electrical energy, tourism and health. Third, the knowledge cluster of the constructors of expertise for SCD (Ardito et al., 2019; Bloomfield, 2020; Gardner et al., 2021), such as dexterity, environmental fits, stimulus organisation response, adaptive structuration, engagement and readiness for change. In short, this research indicates that SCD does not employ the third knowledge cluster as a constructor of expertise to guarantee and ensure success (Katsaros et al., 2020; Pawar et al., 2021; Turner et al., 2019). Likewise, this study investigates the absence of this third knowledge cluster in which the IMIC concentrates on fulfilling public administration as a measure of the performance of SCD in each region. Therefore, this study reveals that the IMIC has mismatched policies for SCD and maintained sustainability to ensure the prosperity of regional communities.

This article contributes to the awareness-raising process of the IMIC, particularly in the SCD projects, so it does not view it as an application software development project. However, SCD is mandatory in science, IST and discipline for the dimensions developed and final completeness due to the community’s social welfare (Ismagilova et al., 2019; Mora et al., 2019). Furthermore, to ensure the final complement to the social welfare of the community, the IMIC should have a strategy that not only doubles dexterity but at least triples dexterity (Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021) as in this study’s knowledge clusters above. This tripled dexterity aims to ensure that the IT investment paradox does not occur (Anzel et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2021); in practice, the SCD burdens the community with increased social living costs. Finally, this research highlights the certainty of community prosperity when they could simultaneously enjoy incremental benefits and a decremental impact on the living costs (Angelidou, 2015; Appio et al., 2019; Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012b). Hence, the existing mechanistic procedures for smart city dimensions are accurate when disruptive innovation can reduce the burdens in people’s lives with low cost, high access to leisure and the certainty of obtaining it.

The second contribution of this article is the elimination of performativity in SCD. Moreover, this study believes that an SCD whose success is measured by the budget absorption from the IMIC and completed by regions is performativity (Anzel et al., 2022; Pali and Schuilenburg, 2020). This performativity means that the government’s performance is biased by the unrealistic absorption of the IMIC budgets to benefit the community. Likewise, this study examines the behavioural pattern of smart city constructors acting in deep stereotype biases that seemingly build smart cities but do not produce high-output defragmented activities (Ismagilova et al., 2019). Furthermore, the SCD for the IMIC should be based on a centralised paradigm that each region deploys. Therefore, SCD becomes cheaper because there is one national development for all regions, which the users customise according to their needs (Angelidou, 2015; Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012). Finally, this study reaffirms that eliminating performativity has equally meant removing the adverse selection (Jameson et al., 2019; Sumiyana et al., 2022) of smart city constructors, which they undergo with intellectual opportunism.

For this study, several key terms are defined for clarity. “Digital transformation” refers to integrating digital technology into all business areas, fundamentally changing operations and how value is delivered to customers. “Knowledge capital” represents the intangible asset of an organisation’s collective knowledge, expertise and intellectual resources. “Economic equilibrium” denotes a state where economic forces, such as supply and demand, are balanced. Finally, “constructive knowledge” encompasses interconnected and practical knowledge that enables smart city actors to effectively manage and innovate development projects.

The problem with IMIC’s SCD, as signified by this study, is the existing glorification of success, a project promising efficient activity processing in public administration and further increasing the prosperity of the social community (Shruti et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the realisation of SCD does not necessarily operate well and has uncertain consequences regarding increased social prosperity for people living in the regions (Guma and Monstadt, 2021; Michalec et al., 2019) as the first problem. Furthermore, the IMIC regulatory policies support this glorification of success by strengthening the realisation of SCD projects. For support, this study shows that the IMIC allocates budgeting expenditure to special fund transfers for regencies and municipals to develop SCD, sharpening this glorification of success (Anzel et al., 2022; Appio et al., 2019; Hens, 2020). Therefore, even though regions that claim to have solid fiscal capacity are those that build SCD, the IMIC spends a more significant proportion of budgeting expenditures to realise the SCD projects. Up to this point, the glorification of success for SCD has become increasingly accurate because the budget expenditures from the IMIC are the first determinant of symptoms.

The glorification of success is increasingly visible when the IMIC designs SCD with only two knowledge clusters, measuring performance success with a technological checklist as if developing ordinary application software and budget absorption. Likewise, the dimensions of SCD focus on disciplines related to public services such as transportation, electrical energy, tourism, health, etc. However, the IMIC should provide disciplined knowledge for the SCD’s constructors (Mohanty et al., 2021; Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021). This knowledge cluster is constructive knowledge used to ensure the success of the development process and its benefits for the welfare of the people (Fan et al., 2021; Panjaitan et al., 2023). Thus, the certainty of completing the SCD project and the benefits for the local community are prospective in the future and vice versa. SCD is not an IT investment paradox. Thus, this uncertain usefulness for realising public welfare is the second determinant symptom.

This study examines the ambiguity of SCD projects without an alternative strategy. Application development projects usually use ambidexterity as the lowest combination of the two chosen strategies (Anzel et al., 2022; Armstrong and Manitsky, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, this study proposes that the IMIC’s SCD projects should include strategic choices attached to maintain the certainty of completion and benefits that increase social prosperity (Ahmad et al., 2022; Clemons et al., 2022). Therefore, the authors believe the IMIC has installed tripled or quadrupled strategies for SCD projects (Ahmad et al., 2022; Garcia-Aunon et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2019). For example, the IMIC should install paired strategies related to cost reduction, diversification, transformation, shifting balance and environmental fit. Thus, the lack of clarity on implementing this paired strategy shows a highly signified degree of glorification of success as the third determinant symptom.

This research concludes that the second problem is due to the lack of knowledge of constructors and the absence of paired choice strategies. As a consequent problem, the agents involved in SCD act in the adverse selection (Hui et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2019; Bastian et al., 2022) or behavioural intellectual opportunism (Cook and Valdez, 2023; Sumiyana et al., 2022). With this ambiguity, the agents’ involvement acts in lenient circumstances to complete SCD. Furthermore, this study explains that leniency is formed because the IMIC and the region instruct agents to be involved in the SCD, although the knowledge of the transformation process is imperfect (Pali and Schuilenburg, 2020; Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021) and with low ability to measure the output (Anzel et al., 2022; Ardito et al., 2019). Therefore, they are the agents working to achieve unequivocal outputs and outcomes (Ahmad et al., 2022; Angelidou, 2015). Their actions involved in this high lenient level further support glorifying success as the second consequent problem. Moreover, the leniencies of the agents involved as constructors get worse when the software development requirements are not equipped with rigid standards.

This study posits Moser (2001) and Jameson et al. (2019) to explain that glorification means accepting perfection for someone to enter heaven immediately. Meanwhile, this study uses the term glorification of success to describe SCD projects with a mission. It aims to improve the welfare of specific local communities as the meaning of heaven. Thus, the SCD project glorifies success, promising success in achieving higher prosperity for people groups. However, the promise of creating social prosperity from the SCD is not necessarily fulfilled because the success of its development and implementation does not necessarily reach 100% success. Therefore, this study argues that SCD can achieve success or failure. Furthermore, if SCD is successful, its implementation towards social prosperity will not be successful. Finally, the authors note that developments up to the implementation of smart cities are more likely to fail when the constructor does not fully acquire circumstantial knowledge (Guma and Monstadt, 2021; Ji et al., 2021; Mora et al., 2019). For example, we argue that constructive partialities of knowledge do not comprehend regencies’ and municipals’ strategies due to single-dexterity and ICT investment paradox.

This study looks at the glorifying success of the smart cities developed by the IMIC and regions with a low probability of achieving social welfare. We highlight that SCD tends to be in the realm of evangelist and feminist objectification. From the evangelism perspective, this research posits Rutter (2002) and Rogaly (1996) to explain the spread of Christian religious missions as the IMIC spreads SCD projects to several regions. On the other hand, this study criticises SCDs because they must be based on the truth and authenticity of their economic essence and ergonomic directions (Clauß et al., 2022; Kourtit and Nijkamp, 2012; Smith et al., 2019). Likewise, SCD is supported when developers have competencies that do not concentrate on IoT, ICT and budgeting. However, we explain the need for constructive knowledge (Appio et al., 2019; Ardito et al., 2019; Guma and Monstadt, 2021) that must be mastered to implement smart cities as constructors. Finally, this study states that SCD cannot be done through evangelism as a religious appeal. In the project context, the IMIC instructs regions for SCD but not in power appeal. Hence, SCD must carry a message to ensure the implementation of social welfare that is enhanced for all the regions’ people.

From a feminist objectification perspective, this study posits Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) and Cohen et al. (2019) to explain that the influence and practice that always runs in social construction on women’s body image and cognitive habits always pay attention to women’s bodies appearance. Applied in the development project, the authors argue that the IMIC and regions prioritise objectification in forming application and cognitive habits that focus on the appearance of smart cities. In short, we highlight smart city objectification because the IMIC and regions concentrate on making it despite misaddressing the uncertainty (Ahmad et al., 2022; Clemons et al., 2022; Jameson et al., 2019) for the welfare of society. Thus, this study demonstrates that SCD is characterised by dimensionally objectified development (Ahmad et al., 2022; Appio et al., 2019; Clauß et al., 2022), such as transportation, health, tourism, energy and administrative services. Moreover, the SCD project is moving to succeed in being self-objectified (Fan et al., 2021; Garcia-Aunon et al., 2019; Gardner et al., 2021) because of the support for budgeting systems allocated by the IMIC to make SCD project successes.

From a comprehensive perspective, this study demonstrates that the IMICs and regions’ glorification of success in SCD, mutually speaking, does not stand up. However, glorifying success in smart cities is supported by concepts or theories equivalent to evangelism and feminist objectification. Then, this research explains that the IMIC acts as an evangelist carrying out a classic, powerful appeal (Rogaly, 1996; Shruti et al., 2022) to make an SCD project. Thus, the IMIC prioritises the measurability and controllability of SCD with administratively tight budgeting pressures and under the pretext of financing these development projects. Likewise, the IMIC places SCD in the feminist objectification that shows the smart city’s appearances and the dimensionally functional realisation of the smart city’s capacities (Moser, 2001; Rutter, 2002). Ultimately, these approaches to evangelism and feminist objectification bring out truth and authenticity that continue to carry out SCD in a glorification of success.

This study designs propositions that are then examined to demonstrate the reality and authenticity of SCD built by the IMIC and other regions. From the contextual perspective, the SCD project shows the glorification of success (Hens, 2020; Moser, 2001; Bastian et al., 2022; Panjaitan et al., 2023), which promises the people of the region to enjoy a prosperous life in the future (Ahmad et al., 2022; Appio et al., 2019; Michalec et al., 2019). However, this research explains that the reality of the SCD project is in the glorification of success for the following reasons. First, the IMIC finances SCD projects for regions with solid fiscal capacity to realise smart cities. However, the performance assessment of a region that builds a smart city is measured by the budget absorption and not by the smart city’s ability to prosper the local community. Second, the IMIC does not complete the learning transformation of knowledge for constructors of SCD. Moreover, the authors argue that when the IMIC considers SCD, they perceive software applications. Finally, the IMIC does not complement SCD with multi-dexterous strategies to ensure successful development and implementation that involves all community organs. On the other hand, this research examines the emergence of two consequent problems of uncertainty about gaining social welfare and constructors’ adverse selection in these SCDs. Therefore, this study develops the following propositions:

This study’s design has two stages for the data collection process. In the first stage, it collected all the regulations issued by the IMIC. Furthermore, it maps the content of these regulations to identify their mission and objectives. In particular, it searches for the SCDs’ mission and goals to improve the community’s economic life (Jameson et al., 2019; Ji et al., 2021; Mohanty et al., 2021). Thus, this study identifies the government’s promise to develop a smart city that shows the nuances of the existing glorification of success (Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021; Shruti et al., 2022). In the second stage, this study conducts positive-confirmation procedures (Clauß et al., 2022; Bastian et al., 2022) for the reality and authenticity of glorifying success for the IMIC. In addition, it comprehends these procedures with six out of 50 selected regions currently developing SCD (Yogyakarta City, Sleman and Padang Regencies) and the government auditor who examined these SCD projects. This positive confirmation ensures the glorification of success, along with the two consequent problems and three determinant symptoms stated in this study’s contexts.

The authors have designed the data collection, analysis and reporting of the results of this research by always considering reliability, validity and credibility. For reliability and credibility, this study ascertains the data source from regulations supported by news coverage (Bogaard et al., 2019; Suresh et al., 2020). When the researchers collect the same data and information three times, we conclude that reliability and validity have been achieved (Bogaard et al., 2019; Pali and Schuilenburg, 2020). Meanwhile, we ensure credibility with competent sources of data and information with experts who are marked as SCDs’ constructors, as presented in Table 1. Likewise, we examine the interviewees’ content results to be re-confirmed by other participants. Finally, this study has the underlying parameters for obtaining, analysing, grouping, condensing and synthesising data and information to achieve saturation (Shruti et al., 2022). Next, we report the synthesis results in condensed factors presented in the research discussion and findings.

Our findings indicate significant issues concerning the first proposition, which questions whether the IMIC’s SCD projects genuinely enhance social prosperity or glorify their success. The IMIC approach to implementing SCD projects is measured by what ICT procurement regularly does. When the IMIC treats the SCD development projects as a regular procurement rule, the consequences of measuring these projects are denominated by a disciplined administration regime. Particularly, the project performance is marked by relationships between the project’s input and outcome, measured by budget absorptions. Thus, this study reveals money utilisation in the regency or municipal budgets as a primarily mechanistic-static system in the IMIC’s ICT projects. Furthermore, this research collected some transcripts supporting the resistance below:

We noted that 50 regions conduct SCD projects and municipalities apart from measuring the constructed mechanism accomplishing the projects (Hsueh et al., 2020; Patrucco et al., 2021). In other words, the IMIC administratively sets up SCD projects, such as ICT hardware and infrastructure procurements. Nevertheless, this study argues that treating SCD projects as physical asset procurements is not false because it fulfils Presidential Decree No. 16 of 2018 and Audit Law No. 15 of 2004. This law requires that SCD project implementers submit evidential matters of financial accounting data to be uncategorised as frauds and irregularities. In this mechanistic-static administrative system, the authors infer that the IMIC commands regions and municipalities developing the SCD projects using parametric measurements of underlying and supporting documents, not comprehending with constructive knowledge (Hao et al., 2021; Jamroga and Ågotnes, 2007; Saha et al., 2021; Panjaitan et al., 2023). Referring these findings to prior literature, a study on ICT projects in South Korea revealed that bureaucratic rigidity and stringent administrative controls often hamper the flexibility needed for innovative smart city projects (Kim and Han, 2015). Similarly, research from Brazil indicated that the administrative burden and a mechanistic approach to project management hindered the effectiveness of ICT procurement in enhancing social welfare (De Carvalho et al., 2023). These findings align with the observed resistance in the IMIC’s mechanistic-static administrative system, where project success is primarily measured by budget absorption rather than actual social impact. Thus, our critical reasoning supports proposition P1 because SCD did not focus on the potential benefits of social prosperity. Simultaneously, it promotes proposition P2, being probably an investment paradox. Hence, this research reveals that the IMIC’s whispering about the successful SCD project that will increase social welfare is an equivocal policy due to how the absence of knowledge could innovate these social advancements.

To address the second proposition, which explores how the IMIC supports SCD projects through budgeting systems and whether these projects avoid becoming an investment paradox, we found that the IMIC’s approach often falls short. This study highlights the effects of slipped capacity on achieving SCD. Furthermore, the IMIC prioritises ICT digitalisation as the primary goal of the development project, not the smart city’s economic system outcome. The slipped capacity becomes profoundly clear by indicating the lack of clarity in the knowledge of the transformation process between the IMIC and the regions as if searching for a standardised SCD project. The following are transcripts of the interviews supporting this argument:

This research reveals that the implementation capacity of development and the desired outcome in terms of capacity for SCD are uncertain regarding size and control (Angelidou, 2015; Pawar et al., 2021; Panjaitan et al., 2023). It also indicates that the products of regions and municipalities on IST are considered smart cities, such as e-tourism, e-government, etc. even though the ambiguity involves economic system elements. Therefore, we show that developing electronic applications carried out by regions or municipalities contains very partial contents of an integrative process involving economic, social, agricultural, banking, etc. On the other hand, most SCDs are going on for and under the regional head’s control, especially when promoting to win an election. Moreover, these regions finance SCD with fiscal support from the IMIC. Hence, many slipped capacities are missed and not induced into the smart city (Harrington and Guimaraes, 2005; Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009). Consequently, the smart city, which was developed massively by 50 regencies and expanded to 100 by the IMIC, does not formulate an economic system with foresight that promises to increase prosperity and efficient social life.

The slipped knowledge capacity, signified by bureaucratic rigidity, supports proposition P2 due to prioritising financing systems that are not equipped by learning to manage information systems technology, which is paradoxical. In India, research on smart city projects found that political agendas and fiscal constraints often result in projects that fail to meet their intended economic and social goals, similar to the slipped capacity effects observed in Indonesia (Basu, 2019). In addition, a study in Mexico highlighted that smart city initiatives prioritise digitalisation over broader socio-economic benefits without clear knowledge transfer and strategic alignment (Niebla Zatarain and Osuna Millán, 2021). This study’s results align with findings from IMIC’s projects, where ICT digitisation takes precedence over comprehensive SCD. Thus, these evidential matters espouse proposition P3, which is not equipped with the transformation of constructive knowledge.

The third proposition questions why the IMIC does not effectively share and transform constructive knowledge to make regions highly competent constructors of SCD. Our findings reveal critical gaps in this area. As a starting point, this study indicates that SCD projects carried out by several regions and municipalities in Indonesia always refer to Asia City. In addition, the IMIC ordered regions and municipalities to present their respective smart city master plans. Moreover, the IMIC supports the regions and municipalities with technical guidance to complete the master plans. Furthermore, this study proves these statements by collecting several scripts below:

This study shows that 50 agents who develop smart cities experience uncertainty regarding Asia City referrals. This ambiguity concerns that Asia City should be built using comprehensive knowledge sequences and boundary designs concentrating on how it improves the community’s social welfare (Mora et al., 2019; Shamsuddin and Srinivasan, 2021; Panjaitan et al., 2023). Therefore, this study preliminarily concludes that the IMIC reigns unclearly due to incomplete fundamental knowledge used to transform society, collective cognition and targeted economic and social well-being.

In China, the government’s directive approach to smart city projects has been critiqued for lacking the necessary dissemination of constructive knowledge, leading to issues similar to those found in the IMIC’s fixed-point insights (Janus, 2021). Likewise, in Turkey, studies have shown that smart city projects often reference successful models from other regions without adequate contextual adaptation, resulting in suboptimal outcomes (Bıyık, 2019). These cases reflect the challenges faced by IMIC in effectively sharing and transforming knowledge to build competent SCD systems. Suboptimal outcomes probably support proposition P3, which is paradoxical. Meanwhile, the IMIC does not frame SCD projects to use standardised ICTs, such as programming interfaces, machine learning, deep learning and artificial intelligence. By drawing back on the extant literature with its findings, the SCD model in several regions in Indonesia is closer to the fixed point of Asia City as the upper-limit parameter. In addition, the IMIC does not provide knowledge capital as a final empowerment tool to achieve the project’s mission for the SCD’s directed goals and objectives (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2016; Urbancova, 2012), especially in achieving social welfare and community prosperity. Thus, development without complemented dexterous strategies supports proposition P4.

Finally, the fourth proposition explores why the IMIC does not complement SCD projects with multi-dexterous strategies to ensure successful completion. Our findings suggest a lack of flexibility and dynamic management. This study indicates that the IMIC’s sphere of control in the administrative regime is described as a mechanistic-static system. Meanwhile, the IMIC did not construct a sphere of control based on constructive knowledge to accomplish SCD. Therefore, we show that implementing SCD runs with static management where project dynamics are not the foundation for achieving optimal results. The authors collected the interview transcripts below:

The authors infer from the above transcriptions that the IMIC does not allow regions to be dynamic works in SCD. This inflexibility means that this SCD platform is in a condition of inelastic management, evidenced by IMIC’s enforcement to use models and templates of IST. Thus, this study reveals that SCD cannot accommodate the most optimal design and model achievements (Emiliano de Souza et al., 2022; Shahzadi et al., 2021). However, we suspect that the region’s smart city products are performance job-oriented to facilitate the needs and interests of the IMIC and finance the continuity of the project accomplishment. Hence, the authors believe that performativity is unlikely to provide certainty for achieving social welfare and increasing the welfare of society (Fan et al., 2021; Ismagilova et al., 2019; Löfgren and Webster, 2020). The existing performativity is the evidence bolstering propositions P3 and P4. On the other hand, SCD projects would likely be reasonable, meaning they would be convenient projects (administrative discipline) despite undetermined advantages.

In Japan, smart city projects often struggle with inflexible management structures that do not support dynamic and innovative approaches, similar to the unkinetic management observed in Indonesia (Fietkiewicz and Stock, 2015). In addition, in Italy, the lack of multi-dexterous strategies in smart city initiatives has been identified as a barrier to achieving comprehensive socio-economic benefits (Rahmad and Nurmandi, 2022). These examples resonate with IMIC’s challenges in incorporating flexible and dynamic management practices into their SCD projects. Due to the lack of kinetic knowledge management and multi-dexterous strategies, our critical analysis supports proposition P4.

This study starts from an evangelistic perspective by stating that the smart city’s developments promise to increase people’s prosperity and have glorious success by achieving a paradise. Likewise, from the standpoint of feminist objectification, this study marks the undetermined self-objectification of SCD carried out by several regions and municipalities commanded by the IMIC. Furthermore, this study condenses the analysis and discussion into four factors from the participants’ interviews: the mechanistic-static administrative system, material fixed-point, slipped capacity effect and inflexible management in development systems. However, the authors criticise the IMIC for not acknowledging the future potency of the smart city’s usefulness for a prosperous society that could gain multi-dexterous benefits. The IMIC should have achieved more outstanding social welfare systems, such as how Scandinavian countries manage ICT’s deep learning with advanced intelligence. Furthermore, this study summarises four condensing factors in suggestive conclusions, managerial project practices and social implications.

Firstly, the authors crystallise the emergence of four condensing factors due to administrative regime prioritisation. Similar issues have been identified globally, such as in South Korea, where bureaucratic rigidity hampers innovative smart city projects (Kim and Han, 2015). In Brazil, administrative burdens hinder the effectiveness of ICT procurement in enhancing social welfare (De Carvalho et al., 2023). We argue that the IMIC mandates fulfilling underlying and supporting data demanded by the IMIC’s accounting, forcing regions and municipalities to concentrate on administrative fulfilments, including project performance measurements. Moreover, the IMIC misaddresses measurements for SCD projects using regular performance, such as physical asset procurements. Consequentially, these regions and municipalities do not focus on the knowledge content for constructing the optimised use of the smart city, meaning tendentious administration and audit trails. Implicitly, regions and municipalities conducting SCD projects would possibly carry out with adverse selection compared to this smart city’s optimised capabilities. Hence, the authors argue that regions’ and cities’ SCD are far from the capacities needed for social and economic transformation in the IMIC’s public administration.

Secondly, poor reasoning in SCD in Indonesia is a reference point for Asian cities. In China, smart city projects have been critiqued for lacking necessary knowledge dissemination, leading to suboptimal outcomes (Janus, 2021). Similarly, projects referencing successful models without adequate contextual adaptation in Turkey also face challenges (Bıyık, 2019). With this choice, IMIC’s SCD exhibits the imperfection of knowledge transformation. On the other hand, the development of an intelligent city becomes correct in terms of high validity when the reference is oriented to the distinctive equilibrium for social prosperity in the future. In other words, the IMIC’s SCD should formulate a shifting balance for the goal of social prosperity. Meanwhile, this study reveals that the achievement of distinctive equilibrium and shifting balance is carried out when the knowledge capital is qualified in standardised parameters in all matters related to development. Likewise, the IMIC’s SCD achieves higher validity when linked to established banking and ICT communication systems firms. Finally, this study demonstrates that the SCD projects are not accompanied by circumstantial knowledge endowment as agent developers, not involving high-knowledge transformations.

Thirdly, the authors infer that SCD projects are not accompanied by the dissemination of constructive knowledge to accomplish these SCD projects. Similar issues are seen in India and Mexico, where political agendas and fiscal constraints lead to projects that fail to meet their intended economic and social goals (Basu, 2019; Niebla Zatarain and Osuna Millán, 2021). Consequently, SCD has become highly divergent among regencies and municipalities throughout Indonesia. This divergence shows the high cost of developing SCD by 50 regencies and cities. Therefore, this study indicates a “QuoVadis” on systems development projects that should be carried out with a nationally integrated social IST. Furthermore, developing SCD in this national unit analysis formulates the constructive idea that knowledge capital for the IMIC is a long-run dynamic capacity with a decreasing long-term marginal cost. Meanwhile, the adaptive capacity of a smart city is not located in the capacity per regency or municipality. Instead, this adaptive capacity lies at the IMIC level nationally, especially regarding knowledge endowment, which functions as a social welfare transformation. Finally, the IMIC’s fixed insights on regencies’ or municipalities’ options to build a smart city and neglected nationally adaptive capacities are performativity or practical works. Hence, this study reveals a slipped capacity without considering long-run capacity and long-run decreased development costs.

Finally, this study indicates that the IMIC controls 50 simultaneous SCDs in Indonesia. In Japan, smart city projects struggle with inflexible management structures, which do not support dynamic and innovative approaches (Fietkiewicz and Stock, 2015). Additionally, in Italy, the lack of multi-dexterous strategies in smart city initiatives is the stumbling block to achieving comprehensive socio-economic benefits (Rahmad and Nurmandi, 2022). Similarly, the development process was not controlled by the existence of a knowledge repository for the 50 regencies and municipalities. Thus, this study demonstrates that the SCD is a building-block agency, where each regency or municipality wills its ability and capacity to create IST applications. Inferring these events and conditions, the authors point out that the IMIC manages SCD in an inelastic way. However, what should be true is that the IMIC provides a knowledge repository for exchanging materials and development procedures and subsequently serves as a reciprocity role for all human resources involved in development in regencies and municipalities. Furthermore, the absence of a knowledge repository and motivation for knowledge reciprocity formulates SCD in a conditional state of performativity and practical project, which appears to be performing but is in a fallacy of partiality.

The authors believe this article contains several weaknesses and opens up opportunities for future research. First, the IMIC controls and supervises 416 regencies and 98 municipalities, which will develop smart cities. Thus, developing 514 smart cities is an ambitious project that does not make sense because it is massive and has enormous divergent consequences. In addition, these projects profoundly impact uncontrollable SCD and move it toward maladaptive living conditions. Therefore, this study opens up opportunities for future research to analyse why the IMIC doesn’t link this development centrally and integratively. Likewise, why does IMIC not cut development costs to be carried out in a centralised and distributed IST to all regencies and cities?

Future research would be fascinating because of the unintegrated SCD throughout Indonesia. Finally, the authors point to the possibility of future research on the inadaptability of managing IST development or the low political power to authorise such development. Second, future studies will be challenging in continuing this research’s work on the incidence of feminist objectification. Meanwhile, this article marks the existence of a null regulation from the IMIC, which is not authoritatively strict for SCD. Consequently, the absence of a regulatory framework for developing SCD impacts the emergence of feminist objectification due to working on a smart city in political litigation.

Funding statement: The University of Gadjah Mada Research Directorate financed this research until its publication.

Data availability statement: The data sets generated during and/or analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations of conflicting interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicting interests.

Ethics approval statement: This study has no ethical issues due to not using human bodies, plants and animals.