Rohmaniyah Rohmaniyah (1), Latifah Hoiriyah (2)
Records management supports administrative continuity, accountability, and access to public information. This article compares archival practices reported in previous studies of three Indonesian public institutions: the Secretariat of the Surakarta City Regional House of Representatives, the Makassar Administrative Court, and the Central Java Provincial Manpower, Transmigration, and Population Office. A descriptive-comparative literature review was conducted using three principal case sources and archival regulations. The synthesis examines correspondence handling, filing, preservation, disposition, facilities, staffing, and information access. The reported cases differ in their emphasis: numerical classification and facility constraints in Surakarta, public information access in the court, and mixed filing arrangements and inactive-records management in the provincial office. These findings suggest the need for integrated classification, competent personnel, adequate facilities, retention controls, and information services. Because the underlying publications cover different periods, the findings should not be interpreted as an assessment of current institutional conditions. The study offers a preliminary comparative framework for evaluating public-sector records management.
Gagarin, L. I. (2009). Pelaksanaan tata kearsipan di Dinas Tenaga Kerja, Transmigrasi, dan Kependudukan Provinsi Jawa Tengah [Skripsi, Universitas Sebelas Maret].
Lukmana, T. A. (2011). Pelaksanaan tata kearsipan di Sekretariat DPRD Kota Surakarta [Skripsi, Universitas Sebelas Maret].
Rahman, M. R. (2020). Pengelolaan kearsipan perkara di pengadilan dalam rangka kemudahan akses informasi publik di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara Makassar. Jurnal Hukum Peratun, 3(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.25216/peratun.322020.155-170
Republik Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 43 Tahun 2009 tentang Kearsipan.
Andini, I. S., Sahid, A., & Masse, A. (2026). Effectiveness of records management in public service delivery: Evidence from a secondary data review. Journal of Indonesian Scholars for Social Research. https://doi.org/10.59065/jissr.v6i2.309
Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia. (2021). Peraturan Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2021 tentang Pengelolaan Arsip Elektronik. https://jdih.anri.go.id/peraturan/peraturan-arsip-nasional-republik-indonesia-no-6-tahun-2021
Dikopoulou, A., & Mihiotis, A. (2010). Records management: A key element for effectiveness, accountability and development in the Greek public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(5), 262–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690903449673
International Organization for Standardization. (2016). Information and documentation—Records management—Part 1: Concepts and principles (ISO Standard No. 15489-1:2016). https://www.iso.org/standard/62542.html
Magfiroh, A. L., & Kuswantoro, A. (2026). Distinct and non-overlapping determinants of records management accountability: Evidence from sub-district government offices in Semarang, Indonesia. Journal of Office Administration: Education and Practice, 6(2), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.26740/joaep.v6n2.p115-143
Shepherd, E., Stevenson, A., & Flinn, A. (2009). The impact of freedom of information on records management and record use in local government: A literature review. Archives and Records, 30(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379810903445000
Tough, A. (2011). Accountability, open government and record keeping: Time to think again? Records Management Journal, 21(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/09565691111186894