Enhancing Administrative Accountability in Resource-Constrained Settings: A Case Study of Automated Membership Verification

Accurate membership verification is essential for public-sector union governance and compliance with the Human Resource Management and Information System (HRMIS), yet many unions still rely on slow manual processes. The Sabah Medical Services Union (SMSU) case examines an automated verification system introduced to address processing delays, duplicate entries, and data vulnerabilities. Guided by a Design and Development Research (DDR) framework, a web-based system was built using low-code architecture, combining a modular front end with a secure cloud backend to enable real-time verification and automatic annual expiry. A baseline of 2,600 legacy records was migrated, followed by usability testing (n=30) and performance monitoring of 400 new requests. Data were analysed descriptively using SPSS version 27. Certificate issuance time fell from as long as 28 days to immediate real-time retrieval. The automated expiry function ensured annual validity without requiring manual administrative checks. Usability scores indicated high acceptance (Mean=4.43/5.00; 90% satisfaction), and all 400 new requests were processed without recorded verification errors. The SMSU experience shows that low-cost digital innovation can close administrative gaps in resource constrained organisations and offers a practical model for improving governance and accountability without major infrastructure investment.

Digital Transformation, Membership Verification, E-Certificate System, Union Governance

1. Ayei Ibor, Hooper, M., Maple, C., Crowcroft, J., & Epiphaniou, G. (2024). Considerations for trustworthy cross-border interoperability of digital identity systems in developing countries. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02008-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chen, Y., Xu, C., & Yang, L. (2024). E-government online services and governance capacity. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.102024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Djatmiko, G. H., Sinaga, O., & Pawirosumarto, S. (2025). Digital transformation and Social inclusion in Public Services: A Qualitative Analysis of E-Government Adoption for Marginalized Communities in [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Sustainable Governance. Sustainability, 17(7), 2908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072908 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Economic Planning Unit. (2021). Twelfth Malaysia Plan (12MP) 2021–2025: A prosperous, inclusive, sustainable Malaysia. Prime Minister’s Department. https://rmke12.epu.gov.my/en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Giannopoulou, A., Apostolakis, I., & Arabatzis, G. (2023). Digital identity infrastructures: A critical approach of self-sovereign identity. Computers & Security, 124, 102934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102934 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410539794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hallin, A., Lindell, E., Jonsson, B., & Uhlin, A. (2022). Digital transformation and power relations. Interpretative repertoires of digitalization in the Swedish steel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38(1), 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Herrington, J., McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Conducting Educational Design Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hunitie, M. F., & Akhorshaideh, A. H. (2025). Digital drivers of digital transformation in public sector organizations. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 9(3), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.8.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2021). Likert scale: Explored and explained. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276394797_Likert_Scale_Explored_and_Explained [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kayyali, M. (2025). Digital Transformation in Public Sector Management. IGI Global EBooks, 289–324. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9251-5.ch009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-55. - References - Scientific Research Publishing. (n.d.). Www.scirp.org. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=534541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Luo, C., Hasan, N. A. M., & Zamri bin Ahmad, A. M. (2024). Exploring Satisfaction and Trust as Key Drivers of e-Government Continuance Intention: Evidence from China for Sustainable Digital Governance. Sustainability, 16(24), 11068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Maheshwari, N., Mohan, G., & Mishra, D. (2025). Digital transformation in governance: Preconditions for achieving good governance. Public Policy and Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767251355715 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Marian, C. V., Mitrea, D. A., Rusu, D. S., & Andrei Vasilateanu. (2025). Transparent Digital Governance: A Blockchain-Based Workflow Audit Application. Applied Sciences, 15(21), 11694–11694. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111694 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2021). Health digital transformation blueprint 2021–2025. Ministry of Health Malaysia. https://www.moh.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/2703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Muhammad Imran Sarwar, Abbas, Q., Tahir Alyas, Alzahrani, A., Alghamdi, T., & Yazed Alsaawy. (2023). Digital Transformation of Public Sector Governance With IT Service Management–A Pilot Study. IEEE Access, 11, 6490–6512. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3237550 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Norling, K. (2024). Digital transformation or digital standstill? Status quo bias in Swedish public sector strategies. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-04-20240078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Saeed, S. (2025). Digital Transformation in Governmental Public Service Provision and Usable Security Perception in Saudi Arabia. Information, 16(3), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030247 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sanina, A., Styrin, E., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Yudina, M., & Semenova, A. (2024). Digital government transformation and Sustainable Development Goals: To what extent are they interconnected? Sustainability, 16(22), 9761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding Digital transformation: a Review and a Research Agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Wahyudin, M., Devi, R. K., & Sensuse, D. (2024). Digital transformation readiness model in government. Ranah Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 6(4), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v6i4.868 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Understanding Academic Leadership: Theory, Practice and Future Horizons
• A Literature Review on Leadership and Cultural Evolution of Adventism in East Africa Region
• Unlocking Employee Creativity Through Empowering Leadership: The Dynamic Interplay of Trust and Engagement
• The Integration of Preachers’ Leadership Competencies in Empowering Preachers for the Orang Asli Community in Malaysia
• Traditional Authority vs. Legacy Leadership: A Comparative Literature Review from the Arab World