Technology Integration and Administrative Efficiency in Philippine SUCs: A Systematic Review

This systematic review synthesized evidence on how technology integration contributes to administrative efficiency in Philippine State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), with emphasis on technology management practices, digital transformation barriers, and innovation-oriented strategies. Guided by PRISMA 2020, the review identified 152 records from electronic databases and supplementary sources. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and quality appraisal, 39 studies were included in the final thematic synthesis. Eligible studies addressed technology integration, digital transformation, ICT adoption, e-governance, cloud computing, information systems, or administrative automation in SUCs and comparable higher education contexts. Findings indicate that digital systems support administrative efficiency by streamlining workflows, improving records access, reducing manual redundancy, strengthening reporting, enhancing service quality, and supporting data-informed decision-making. However, the magnitude of efficiency improvement was rarely quantified, as most studies reported perceived benefits, usability outcomes, readiness assessments, or qualitative evidence rather than pre- and post-implementation measures. Effective implementation depended on digital leadership, ICT planning, infrastructure readiness, staff competence, system interoperability, data governance, cybersecurity, user support, and continuous monitoring. Persistent barriers included limited funding, weak connectivity, insufficient technical personnel, low digital competence, resistance to change, fragmented systems, procurement constraints, and cybersecurity risks. The review proposes a technology management framework linking leadership, governance, infrastructure, human capacity, system integration, and innovation partnerships to measurable administrative performance. The study provides evidence for SUC administrators, ICT managers, and policymakers in designing sustainable, transparent, responsive, and accountable digital administrative systems.

administrative efficiency; digital transformation; Philippine SUCs; systematic review; technology integration

1. Alenezi, M. (2023). Digital learning and digital institution in higher education. Education Sciences, 13(1), Article 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alimboyong, C. R., & Bucjan, M. E. (2021). Cloud computing adoption among state universities and colleges in the Philippines: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(4), 1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i4.21526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Benavides, L. M. C., Tamayo Arias, J. A., Arango Serna, M. D., Branch Bedoya, J. W., & Burgos, D. (2020). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 20(11), Article 3291. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bisri, A., Putri, A., & Rosmansyah, Y. (2023). A systematic literature review on digital transformation in higher education: Revealing key success factors. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(14), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i14.40201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bordios, A. G., Cananua-Labid, S. A., Mabansag, A. B., Canal, M. V., Carboquillo, J. B. D., & Del Rosario, M. A. C. (2026). Development of unified college admission system for Philippine state universities and colleges: A data-driven approach to equity and access. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 41(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v41.i1.pp61-72 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brdesee, H. (2021). A divergent view of the impact of digital transformation on academic organizational and spending efficiency: A review and analytical study on a university e-service. Sustainability, 13(13), Article 7048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Carmo, J. E. S., Lacerda, D. P., Klingenberg, C. O., & Piran, F. A. S. (2025). Digital transformation in the management of higher education institutions. Sustainable Futures, 9, Article 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100692 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Deacon, B., Laufer, M., & Schäfer, L. O. (2023). Infusing educational technologies in the heart of the university: A systematic literature review from an organisational perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13277 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2023). Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 386. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fernández, A., Gómez, B., Binjaku, K., & Meçe, E. K. (2023). Digital transformation initiatives in higher education institutions: A multivocal literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 12351–12382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11544-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Francisco-Gabion, I. F. (2025). E-governance implementation in the state universities and colleges in Region III: Strategies for enhanced service quality. International Journal of Open-Access, Interdisciplinary and New Educational Discoveries of ETCOR Educational Research Center, 4(3), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.63498/etcor445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gkrimpizi, T., Peristeras, V., & Magnisalis, I. (2023). Classification of barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: Systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(7), Article 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070746 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018: User guide. McGill University. https://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Liu, T., Luo, Y. T., Pang, P. C. I., & Kan, H. Y. (2025). Exploring the impact of information and communication technology on educational administration: A systematic scoping review. Education Sciences, 15(9), Article 1114. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mohamed Hashim, M. A., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3171–3195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Presidential Communications Office. (2024, May 15). PBBM on PH higher education: Significant progress, but much work still to be done. https://pco.gov.ph/news_releases/pbbm-on-ph-higher-education-significant-progress-but-much-work-still-to-be-done/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ramizares, M. L. (2025). Comprehensive assessment of IT systems integration at a local state universities and colleges (SUCs). International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i01.36655 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Remegio, F. M. C., & Casquejo, M. N. S. (2025). Development of a comprehensive Scholarship and Grants Management System (SchoGMS) for State Universities and Colleges. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(4), 3643–3653. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400261 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Singun, A. J. (2025). Unveiling the barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Discover Education, 4, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00430-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study