Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Communication and IT Infrastructure Recovery Post-Disaster Based on COBIT 2019 with a Mixed Method Approach (Case Study of the 2025 Sumatra Flood/Landslide)
Keywords:
Information Technology Governance; COBIT 2019; Post-Disaster Information Technology; Mixed Methods; Infrastructure Recovery; Emergency CommunicationsAbstract
Natural disasters such as floods and landslides significantly impact the continuity of information technology services, particularly in disaster-prone areas such as Sumatra. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of information technology, communication, and infrastructure recovery following the 2025 flood and landslide disaster in Sumatra. A mixed-methods approach was used, integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques, with the COBIT 2019 framework as the primary evaluation tool to assess the governance and management processes associated with post-disaster information technology operations. Quantitative data were collected through a capability-based questionnaire to measure the maturity level of selected COBIT 2019 processes, while qualitative data were obtained through interviews and document analysis to capture contextual conditions and implementation challenges. The results indicate that most information technology processes are at the defined to managed capability level, reflecting the existence of basic policies and procedures but limited effectiveness during crisis situations. Key challenges were identified in emergency communication mechanisms, incident handling, and service continuity, which contributed to delays in infrastructure recovery. This study demonstrates that integrating COBIT 2019 with a mixed-methods approach provides a comprehensive evaluation of post-disaster information technology governance. These findings offer practical insights for improving communication effectiveness and strengthening information technology resilience, while contributing to the growing body of knowledge on information technology governance in the context of disaster management.
References
R. S. Dewi, W. Handayani, I. P. Pratama, W. T. De Vries, I. Rudiarto, and A. Artiningsih, “Assessing Flood Vulnerability from Rapid Urban Growth: A Case of Central Java - Indonesia,” Chinese J. Urban Environ. Stud., vol. 11, no. 4, p. 2350020, 2023, doi: 10.1142/S2345748123500203.
A. Ranerup and H. Z. Henriksen, “Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services,” Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 445–461, 2022, doi: 10.1177/0894439320980434.
M. Opazo-Basáez, F. Vendrell-Herrero, and O. F. Bustinza, “Digital service innovation: a paradigm shift in technological innovation,” J. Serv. Manag., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 97–120, 2022, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-11-2020-0427.
R. A. Ali and S. Mannakkara, “Phased post-disaster recovery challenges: 2016–2017 floods and landslides in Colombo and Kalutara, Sri Lanka,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 111, p. 104728, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104728.
S. Mir, S. A. Shah, and M. S. Bhat, “Evaluation of disaster preparedness in educational infrastructure of remote geographies using Analytical Hierarchy process,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 108, p. 104514, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104514.
B. S. Ganea Wijaya, P. N. Madiawati, and M. Pradana, “Strategy to Improve Service Continuity Performance Through Organizational Resilience and Business Continuity Management,” Enrich. J. Multidiscip. Res. Dev., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 3262–3278, 2025, doi: 10.55324/enrichment.v3i7.413.
P. Velte, “Archival research on integrated reporting: a systematic review of main drivers and the impact of integrated reporting on firm value,” J. Manag. Gov., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 997–1061, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10997-021-09582-w.
C. Yuwen, J. Han, X. Liu, and Z. Zhen, “Distributed Decision-Making of General Linear Systems in Multi-Coalition Games and Its Application to USV Swarm Confrontation,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1255–1268, 2025, doi: 10.1002/rnc.7722.
Y. Jiang, T. Feng, and Y. Huang, “Antecedent configurations toward supply chain resilience: The joint impact of supply chain integration and big data analytics capability,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 257–284, 2024, doi: 10.1002/joom.1282.
H. Zeng et al., “Cancer survival statistics in China 2019–2021: a multicenter, population-based study,” J. Natl. Cancer Cent., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 203–213, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2024.06.005.
M. Afkhamiaghda and E. Elwakil, “Challenges review of decision making in post-disaster construction,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 23, no. 14, pp. 2409–2418, 2023, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2061751.
H. Taherdoost, “What are Different Research Approaches? Comprehensive Review of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Research, Their Applications, Types, and Limitations,” J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2022, doi: 10.30564/jmser.v5i1.4538.
S. Livingstone, G. Mascheroni, and M. Stoilova, “The outcomes of gaining digital skills for young people’s lives and wellbeing: A systematic evidence review,” New Media Soc., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1176–1202, 2023, doi: 10.1177/14614448211043189.
W. Wahyudi, “Five Components of Work Motivation in the Achievement of Lecturer Performance,” Sci. J. Reflect. Econ. Accounting, Manag. Bus., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 466–473, 2022, doi: 10.37481/sjr.v5i2.528.
A. G. McClelland, D. Shaw, N. O’Grady, and A. Fattoum, “Recovery for Development: A Multi-Dimensional, Practice-Oriented Framework for Transformative Change Post-Disaster,” J. Dev. Stud., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2023, doi: 10.1080/00220388.2022.2130055.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Hasanuddin, Muhammad Amin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
International Conference On Islamic Community Studies, Education and Science, its website, and the articles published therein are licensed under a 
